Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 89

JameS Comey
Why all photos of the article include Trump meanwhile you have that Comey picture by himself ?! Why don't you include MuEller, Hillary and even Stormy Daniels' pictures as well ?!

Thus, I recommend to take off the picture of that phoney Comey from this article. PLUS you should refer to the fact that Trump earns one dollar as a salary. Thanx GrecoArm (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC) GrecoArm (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There's so much wrong with this, I'm not sure where to start. First of all, it's James Comey (or "Jim"). Second, it's Mueller. Third, the "one dollar" thing has already been discussed and rejected. Finally, referring to James Comey as "phoney Comey" is probably a BLP violation, and it betrays a desire to push an agenda. I recommend you try swimming in the kiddie pool for a bit before jumping in at the deep end. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your contributions are welcome here! WP:BLPTALK does say, Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced and not related to making content choices should be removed. Your description of Comey is contentious and unsourced - yet it is obviously related to your argument that the picture should be removed per WP:IAR. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See the Please do not bite the newcomers behavioral guideline. You yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC) 19:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ as not representative of article subject. Thanks for the tip,, although "phoney" was uncalled for. Lordy is more pleasant. — JFG talk 06:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I did not mention the first name of "Comey", so why do you brag regarding James or Jim ?! Second, Mueller is the German Muller, bfff who cares?! I recommend that you immigrate to socialist Venezuela or Cuba then come to brag here regarding swimming in rubber ponds. I bet Mr. Trump caused you a severe derangement syndrome in the sad leftist Europe ! You hoped that Comey would do harm to Trump even though you are not even Americans, in that you consider that phoney as your hero ! How sad and pathetic ! GrecoArm (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't "sad" and "pathetic" be capitalized? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right. This guy is obviously trying to be a valued contributor to the Wikipedia community. My bad. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hatting hardly seems appropriate. I don't believe that GrecoArm is a new editor. The editor's first edit ever was the creation of a new page, and not just any new page but a Category page. And many experienced editors don't know the difference between a hyphen and an n-dash (I didn't for almost 2 years), but this editor did after only a few short sessions of editing, including creating another two new category pages (does Wikipedia really need categories for Egyptian people of Montenegrin, Spanish, and Scottish descent, each containing exactly one page?). The editor's first edit on this Talk page looks like trolling to me, pushing several buttons that might get other editors riled. The last entry – oh my! Insulting – in this order – Mueller, Germans, the British, women (the four-letter t-word is just as insulting as the c-word nobody is supposed to use for the "First Daughter"), The Guardian ("bfff"s all, according to GrecoArm, and probably not the most common definition but the opposite one), Jeremy Corbyn, the LGBTQ community, a license plate (?), another editor, and Europe. If this editor does not deserve to be blocked, I don't know who does. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Another little snowflake spotted ! I demanded removal of a picture then you came to attack me with your British deranged "mate" Scjessey. I can tell how anything related to President Trump might drive you crazy to the limit that you lose it and start bashing people (you seem like angry oxen who get triggered when seeing the red MAGA hat ! sad !) I did not come here to fight anyone, I only notified that a picture of "ducks" should not be present in a "machine gun" article for instance. That British obtrusive "Scjessey" claimed that my demand is related to an agenda and attacked me personally, then when I hit back, he rolled to his corner crying and complaining ! We know that snowflakes, especially the "British Guardian fan boys", would always be sensitive when someone show them masculinity ! For the other special person User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, you seem that you were tracking my edits in order to show others that I do harm, hoping that Wikipedia should be a far-left propaganda machine which would "bang historical accuracy for the sake of inclusivity!" ! Far-left people want to control everything in our life, they do not want people to think, they only care if you support gay people and befriend with the peaceful religion adherers. In Britian, London mayor banned bikini pictures for the sake of advertising "Islamic relief donations", and you can tell how Jihadis are funded ! However, I do not like to talk about politics, but I had to simply reply to those little sensitive snowflakes, see this Aspersions ! GrecoArm (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried to remove JFG’s hat but was unsuccessful so I’m quoting ’s original uncensored edit here. Pinging editors, , , and any other editors who may be reading this section: Any suggestions on how to proceed from here? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear what you're getting at here. GrecoArm has been blocked for 1 week, I generally defer to admin discretion, and as far as I'm concerned GrecoArm is a dead issue at least until 16 July. If they resume this crap then, they won't for long. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn’t know that the editor had been blocked four hours earlier when I made my last entry above at 04:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)—didn’t look at the editor's Talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Challenging Jerusalem
I am challenging this in the lead because it has received far less coverage in reliable sources compared to other issues like family separation, racial views, and other material that is currently omitted from the lead. Obviously, it is less impactful than Trump's immigration policies, and other material that should be in the lead.

Let's discuss.- MrX 🖋 13:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * “At least 55 Palestinians were confirmed dead and 2,400 wounded at the time of writing, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, making Monday the bloodiest day in the enclave since the 2014 war with Israel.” Don’t know the final, verified body count. I lean toward inclusion of one sentence; but could be convinced otherwise. O3000 (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the inclusion of the material in the lead. Clearly a much more important event than anything you listed. PackMecEng (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that moving a capital is "clearly a much more important event" than removing 2000+ children from their parents, setting of a torrent of protests? That's a weird take.- MrX 🖋 14:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, yeah I do think it is more important and will certainly have more lasting impact. Do you think a temporary situation like the separation is more important than something that killed and wounded thousands and threatens war? That is rather concerning if so. PackMecEng (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what I think. Sources have given the lion's share of their attention the immigration crisis. Everything is temporary. See, for example, the Roman Empire.- MrX 🖋 14:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support keeping this in the lead. It had an immediate global impact, and long term repercussions. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral, for now. I am not really bothered about whether or not it should be in the lede at the moment. My feeling is that if we are trying to cut down a crowded lede, this should be one of the first things to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was kind of my thinking as well.- MrX 🖋 14:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep – That event received a lot of coverage, reactions and analysis worldwide. Much more significant to the presidency than the temporary policy blunder on the border. — JFG talk 14:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What basis do you have to state that the President, Atty. General, Homeland Security, and other Administration departments and officials "blundered" when they adopted an extreme policy shift and public presentation replete with accusations and aspersions, elaborate justifications, and media pandering? If you have RS that call this a "blunder" -- which would itself be an historic level of incompetent error on a par with Cheney/Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy -- please cite your sources for editors to consider here.  SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are seriously comparing some migrant children crying on tape to an Iraq war that claimed a million lives, you should seriously re-examine your world view. — JFG talk 15:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I take it you have no substantive response to the central issue, that RS do not discuss Trump's immigration actions as "blunders".  SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I just lost all respect for your moral compass. Go away. — JFG talk 16:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks aside, we are not discussing morality here. We are discussing whether RS characterize Trump's immigration-related actions as "blunders". Everything I read tells me that we're seeing them unfold calculated policies implemented with forethought.  SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep it's a major foreign policy decision reversing the policy of 12 previous presidents over the last 70 years. עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep this still has lasting reprecussions, other countries followed suit, as above, it reversed the waiver of previous presidents, etc. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
The recognition of Jerusalem had been part of the lede section since 12 December 2017. You removed this longstanding content on 22 June and I restored it on 27 June. Accordingly, the challenged edit was your 22 June removal, and the phrase should remain visible pending outcome of this discussion. — JFG talk 15:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with JFG on this. It should remain, pending a consensus to remove (which honestly seems unlikely in the immediate future). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also agree with JFG as to process, belatedly FTR FWIW. ICBM NPOV TCBY. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Verified Turmp-haters should be banned from editing this article
When I asked about Trump's one-dollar salary, I had an answer from Scjessey that the discussion was already closed with excluding the fact. I went back to view the discussion and I quote "Scjessey" Archive 87#Salary: "Trump personally makes hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars per year by simply visiting his personal golf clubs and playing more golf than any president in US history, so it would be ridiculous to claim he only takes $1 in salary without this relevant context." ... Just WOW ! you have to simply admire the love and respect of this user to the President !

Another Trump-lover Space4Time3Continuum2x claims: "Not worth noting. Other independently wealthy presidents have also donated their salaries to charity. Also, there are very expensive, fully taxpayer-funded perks that Trump is accepting" ... I wonder what he would say if Obama had a one-dollar salary and donated it to charity !

Furthermore, this SPECIFICO claims here "Archive_85#Presidential salary" that people donate more than the "annual Presidential salary" !

So all the claims are about Golf trip expenses, "free transportation" (I bet Obama was using public buses during his presidency) and the little donation compared to "Thousands of Americans" ! I know that other presidents like Kennedy and Hoover donated their salaries, the problem here is not the salary and charity facts, but the main concern is the extreme bias and unfair processing of the situation, same as the pundits after the US-North Korea summit ! Imagine Maxine Waters and Al Green who were responsible about editing this article !

Therefore, I kindly ask for a vote among users here to decide whether the editors which are proved to be trolls and plain haters to be banned from editing here. GrecoArm (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC) GrecoArm (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL. Yeah, let's get rid of all the "libtards" and put this guy in charge of Wikipedia! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If we got rid of all the biased editors there would be no one here. But the sound of crickets is nice. Bus stop (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I am only talking about this article which obviously you seem vandalizing it ! and it is good that you know what a "libtard" mean. GrecoArm (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If we're going to have restrictions on who can edit this article, editing should exclude both trolling Trump haters AND trolling Trump lovers. Bias goes both ways.  p  b  p  22:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree, because any credit here is excluded already as I already explained, so let's ban the haters first ! GrecoArm (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Banning editors based on their political viewpoint on Trump is unworkable and will never fly. GrecoArm, the referred to discussion only involved a few editors, if you are unhappy with the decision to exclude the one dollar salary then the appropriate thing to do would be to start a Request for Comments which could attract editors who are less partisan to comment.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  22:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Puzzling reversions and what seems to be 1RR vio x2
I'm failing to see how this revert was in the best interest of the article and how it has done anything productive for it or the encyclopedia.

The same goes for this reversion, this reversion , this reversion. All three of which were done within about a seven hour period of time. That's over the limit and a vio of the policy for reverting at this article, right? Especially when one considers another reversion where the editor stated, "using my 1RR to challenge..." here.

If I'm seeing any of this wrong, I'd be happy to see evidence supporting I'm wrong in my perception. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 04:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The diffs you mention look like normal editing activity to me. Only the first one is a clear revert, which we can now discuss. — JFG talk 07:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The section 'Doctrinal views' was mostly Trump quotes about crackers and wine, It's not very encyclopedic. It would be more appropriate in a section titled 'Hors d'oeuvre'. SMirC-chuckle.svg - MrX 🖋 13:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's offensive to Christians because it mocks one of their most sacred acts of worship. Could you please not?  I can't imagine someone posting that kind of comment in relation to Muslims or Sikhs or Buddhists or  and their deeply held religious beliefs and not get some kind of strong warning or even a short block for it.  You really should strike it.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 14:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, your complaint is with Trump then → (202) 456-1111. You had no problem adding his offensive words to the article for some reason.- MrX 🖋 14:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't offended by what he said because it was honest and he was talking only about himself. I'm offended by what you said because it was making a mockery of something Christians hold dear and consider to be one of their most sacred acts.  A sacred act that has the same deep significance as  observant Jews taking part in Yom Kippur.  Or Muslims taking part in Ashura.  Or a Buddhist creating a mandala following a vision.  Are you going to strike your offensive comment?  It would be appreciated.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 14:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Gimme a break. I was making a mockery of Trump's mockery, not the Eucharist itself.- MrX 🖋 14:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support any editor's right to mock Trump's mockery! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, please: No "cracker" jokes here. Cracker wisecracks could be BLP bait.  SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "I was making a mockery of Trump's mockery, not the Eucharist itself." Because you said nothing of "Trump's mockery" in your original comment "...crackers and wine...It would be more appropriate in a section titled 'Hors d'oeuvre' SMirC-chuckle.svg" I'm going to reserve the right to not believe you.  -- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 17:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * , I'm interested to know the perceptions of other editors regarding the changes, simply because it looks like reversions to me without hitting the undo button or a Twinkle revert option. It was the wholesale replacing of content that was written by another editor within a short period of time prior to the change/reversion.  That's the same as a revert, isn't it?  <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;">✉ ✓ 14:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That, indeed, would be a revert. I have not studied your series of diffs in enough detail to find out when all bits of removed text were added, but I did not find that 's edits were reverts, except the two s/he flagged as such: 15:35 4 July and 3:50 6 July, so that I do not see any grounds for a 1RR complaint here. If you do have legitimate concerns, please take them to the relevant editor's talk page. We should just discuss the challenged edit under scrutiny in this section. — JFG talk 15:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks to me like a voiced 1RR revert at 15:35, 4 July 2018 and a sort of unstated revert substantial change at 03:50, 6 July 2018. More than 24 hours apart, so no violation of 1RR. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

2015 blessing
An editor has restore this material that I removed a few days ago:


 * [In 2015 Trump]... received a blessing from Greek Orthodox priest Emmanuel Lemelson.

Interestingly, this leaves out some information about the context and who Lemelson is, best summarized by the sources:

I think this material is trivial and dated, and should be omitted. What do others think?- MrX 🖋 17:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds rather minor for the main article. PackMecEng (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm glad somebody delivered a blessing, but I agree this is not significant enough for this definitive biography of a lifelong public figure such as POTUS. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Διαγράφω as trivial. (That's "delete" in Greek, by the way.) -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. It’s a minor piece of trivia from a campaign event in NH in September 2015 where Lemelson spoke in support of Trump, and Trump just happened to ask for a blessing in full view of the audience.  The editor who restored the text said in the edit summary that it’s well-referenced but the references consist of a WSJ article which I can’t read because of the paywall, and which Lemelson claims is full of falsehoods about his hedgefund and other stuff;  a one-sentence mention of the bare fact, i.e., Lemelson blessed, in IBT; and a FoxBusiness video where the host introduces Lemelson as someone who "has blessed the likes of Donald Trump" - no further mention of Trump, but that doesn't sound very complimentary for either Lemelson or Trump. Also, there has been a lot more coverage of Trump’s hairdo and the length and Chinese origin of his ties, and I don’t see either one mentioned in the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I wonder how much other trivia like this is in the article? Some day I should actually take the time to read the article. Or maybe we could take turns when we have some spare time, to choose one section - one of the non-controversial sections that we never look at - and see how much of it we should get rid of. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. There's a good chance that SCOTUS coverage will give us a break from other news stories in the near future, to allow for a more thorough copy-edit. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This would be trivia in a trivial article. This is not a trivial article. O3000 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete since I can't resist a good pile-on. (Per above.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial in general, and not biographically significant. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep If POTUS asked for a blessing from a priest it is notable specifically to the section on his faith and religion. If there were a section in the article, per above, for "Trump’s hairdo and the length and Chinese origin of his ties" then important events related to those subjects would likely be included (but those topics can not be compared to POTUS's faith, which [unlike those topics] is hardly "trivial").  Nowhere on WP is a blessing by a priest defined as "Trivial" - see here and here among others - undoubtedly some would argue it is the apex of religious confession. Also the placement in time (referenced above as 2015, before the election) does not appear to diminish it's importance, but rather amplify it. There is a long and well establish history of US presidents thanking God and asking for blessings, this event places POTUS  squarely in that lineage.  Above all POTUS himself obviously didn't think it was "trivial", it was important enough to seek out. More references here and here and other places. Cypresscross (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove Cypresscross's impassioned defense not withstanding, I can't see this as particularly WP:DUE for inclusion given the threshold we have to utilize in the case of this article, the amount of important information that room must be reserved for and its immense scope and the amount of routine coverage of minor events associated with the topic. Maybe there is a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE type argument for including this information in a related article--I tend to doubt it, as i think it would be trivia in relation so just about any Trump article, but maybe--but there certainly isn't a good WP:WEIGHT argument for it here. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 05:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. You aren’t truly blessed until you have been profusely blessed by someone blessed by providence 718smiley.svg.

"My desire in service to you has always been to bless you as you make important decisions for the American people. I believe you are serving as President today because of God’s providence. I believe that same providence brought me into your service. I pray as I have served you that I have blessed you and enabled you to effectively lead the American people. Thank you again Mr. President for the honor of serving you and I wish you Godspeed in all that you put your hand to. Your Faithful Friend, Scott Pruitt."}}"
 * (Providence begs to differ, they voted for Clinton 54.4%, Trump 38.9%.)
 * Also listed among Trump's religious advisers is Ralph Reed who was at Bullfeathers when the Holy Spirit told him to come to Jesus by finding a church in the Yellow Pages advertising that "one visit could change your life" (Easton); he also mobilized Christians to shut down casinos, except—-of course—-the casinos he was working for (ghost-dancing, fraud, sins). What kind of "religious advice" could he possibly give?  How to avoid going to jail while collecting $5.3 million for influence-peddling? I apologize for the digression into snarkiness, but reading up on some of the fanzine material in this article occasionally makes me a little lightheaded. Some "others" on the list are Michelle Bachmann and Robert "everybody who does not believe as I do will go to hell except for Trump because reasons" Jeffress.  Don’t see any reason to not mention them in the article, so I did since the two references do.  The members of an advisory board to the president are a tad more relevant to said president's biography than a dab on the forehead three years ago in NH. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:SPAM that fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP with no WP:RS. (Note: the before text is written in AfD language. It is not supposed to be logic or understandable). <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 13:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete – Undue trivia. — JFG talk 17:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete/Remove Some minor one off event with not lasting impact can't be included in an article that is already as long as it is. There is RS coverage however despite claims others may have made. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

North Korea missiles
Well, remember that missile test with North Korea? Looks like he’s gone crazy. He almost destroyed the world! Renacares (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Manhattan developments - Trump tower
Re edit. Sheesh - getting attacked from all sides. The "quote mining" wasn’t cherry-picked so much as ironic in keeping with the tone of Geist’s NY Times article. Come on, "his finesse with the zoning code?" - not exactly complimentary. Geist’s entire article is about showyness and pretentiousness, with a big chunk devoted to the wheeling and dealing behind the building of Trump Tower. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I did not intend fo my edit summary to be a criticism of anyone's editing. I just think that a few selected quotes from a 24 year-old newspaper article was not the best way to present the material. I won't object strongly if the material is restored. - MrX 🖋 13:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My feelings weren't hurt; just wanted to set the record straight. For all I know, the first two quotes were cherry-picked, but I'm not a member of the fanclub.  I would like to reinsert the reference to the current text, 'though, because it contains a lot of info on how Trump "obtained the rights", i.e., managed to get the area rezoned etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree the contemporary NYT article is a useful source. I also agree the contested text had too many direct quotes. Perhaps one of you can suggest an appropriate paraphrase of the source's most salient points instead? — JFG talk 16:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that paraphrasing would be an improvement.- MrX 🖋 16:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The current sentence still contains the most important fact (Trump obtaining the rights to build), and Geist's article, despite its levity and the other stuff it mentions, is a good source for that. I don't even remember why I added the third quote – maybe to counteract the other two, thinking there would be opposition to their removal. Less may be more, and readers interested in details have the source to refer to. My suggestion is to just add Geist as the reference. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just citing the source is fine too, although Trump's play with zoning and air rights would deserve mention. Calling it "finesse" is over the top, though. In general for this article, the less opinion (favorable or not), the better. — JFG talk 20:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me.- MrX 🖋 21:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Air rights trading is completely normal in Manhattan. Since mid-century, the zoning in even the densest areas (and Trump Tower is in full-blown central business district, on New York City's Main Street and one of the 3 main CBD cross street arteries, it's probably zoned pretty high whether anyone tried to get it increased or not) only allows a certain amount of acres of floor per acre of land (15 seems to be a common base number, it's a bit like the better tax deductions with extra floors for building public goods on your land like public plazas/indoor shortcuts, and new subway entrances). This is cause a 1916 building made people realize enough of these would turn the streets into dark canyons at noon, zoning laws were invented and by mid-century they allowed people to sell "unused right to build" to neighbor(s). The city doesn't mind if you buy and sell air rights, it's not very lawyery, everyone knows about it. It doesn't damage sunlight much if "lack of sheer building cliff" is moved to the next building and it allows the free market to redistribute building to where it's most useful. Note to readers: if you're from a place with wide streets or blocks (like much of America) note that the center of Manhattan blocks are only 100 feet from the sidewalk which is a far cry from like the Vegas strip which has so much land they probably don't need density laws. And Manhattan streets (including all required open space like sidewalks) are only 64 (most streets), 80 (big ones) or 100 (Broadway) feet wide. Cause the blocks are thinner than soccer fields, floors all the way from sidewalk to sidewalk are allowed, limited by the floor/land ratio of course (the Twin Towers got around this cause the land was 16 acres of blocks and streets that were razed into like a 300 yard wide sidewalk. Though they were 110 floors and too wide to even fit on NYC blocks all those acres of sidewalk must've had enough air rights). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your informative comment, . — JFG talk 08:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been doing a little light reading before bedtime since I now seem to own most of the biographies ever published on Trump, and I found some interesting material in Wayne Barrett's "The Greatest Show on Earth" (2016 paperback edition of his 1992 book "Trump: The Deals and the Downfall"): Names and amounts of campaign contributions given by Trump and Roy Cohn's law firm to members of the City Planning Commission and the Board of Estimate. Any objection to mentioning pay-to-play? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

New Quinnipiac University poll
(maybe not ... Markbassett (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)) The views ascribed to Trump by voters in the poll from a couple of weeks ago should be represented in the present tense. I hope the reason is obvious.- MrX 🖋 13:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but biographies are supposed to be written from the historical perspective, which means we should use the past tense. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with past tense, but I disagree with your removing the 50% of respondents who cite non-racial motives for controlling the border. On process, I don't know who is challenging what by now, so I will refrain from touching this phrase, but I would appreciate a voluntary reinstatement. — JFG talk 13:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be false balance, JFG. In a section on Trump's racial views, the fact that a significant number of respondents think Trump's border views are based on his racism is significant. The other sentence had nothing to do with his racial views whatsoever. Thus, it does not belong. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Anything that affirms perception of racism is fair game, but anything that counters it should be excluded per false balance? That's reasoning from the conclusion. — JFG talk 13:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The deleted factoid wasn't a "counter" to the racism view. You are suggesting it was a binary choice, but you can believe Trump is motivated by racism AND a sincere interest in controlling our borders. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong: the poll made it a binary choice. See question 41: What do you think is the main motive behind President Trump's immigration policies: a sincere interest in controlling our borders, or racist beliefs? Regrettably, they did not provide a "both" choice. — JFG talk 14:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not read the poll and I stand corrected. Nevertheless, my view remains the same. The fact that some respondents believe Trump's motivation is a sincere interest in controlling our borders has nothing whatsoever to do with his racial views, so it doesn't belong in the section on racial views. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I say we either state both numbers or none. I think the previous statements are enough to give readers a sense of how strongly public opinion considers Trump a racist, and i would move to remove the last "44%" sentence about motivation for border control. — JFG talk 14:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Usually, but not always:
 * Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States.
 * Trump does not drink alcohol
 * The Donald J. Trump Foundation is a U.S.-based private foundation
 * The suit names Trump himself as well as his adult children Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka.
 * Trump supports a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment and says he is opposed to gun control in general
 * Yes, we should write from a historical perspective, but that doesn't mean that we should cast every biographical fact as something that occurred in the past. To do so would be confusing to readers when the facts are ongoing.- MrX 🖋 14:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I am not sure I agree with that. For example, I would've written it as "Trump has supported a broad interpretation..." under normal circumstances. Things like polls are "snapshots" at a given moment in time, and so should always be written in the past tense. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The question fo whether to mention securing borders is solved by just follow the cites -- say what the question actually was, and saywh percentage chose racism. Saying the non-racism part alone would be outside the section, but to not say bothmisportrays the question. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

But on the topic of things not belonging here, what is "said he "has emboldened people who hold racist beliefs" doing here -- it;s not about him having racist views or not or what they are, it's saying folks state an effect rather than any cause or his own beliefs. Seems even more 'out' than presenting the full question about him motivated more by concern for borders or by racism.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I still believe we should either cite both results of the polarizing question 41 in the poll, or none. There was some back and forth as I added one side, MrX added the other, and Scjessey removed the first one. Can we agree to cite both or none? I'd pick none, because the general thrust of the opinion polls is already well-captured. — JFG talk 08:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with with removing "44 percent said his interest in controlling the borders was motivated by "racist beliefs."" It's more detailed than we need from a single poll.- MrX 🖋 15:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. — JFG talk 20:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Consulate closure
By your reasoning, almost all of the "Foreign policy" section could be removed as being in the "wrong article". Is that what you are aiming at, or did you have a specific reason to oppose mentioning the closure of the Seattle consulate? This sort of thing does not happen every day, and it shores up the later sentence's assertion that Russia–U.S. relations are at a low point. — JFG talk 13:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As described in this news article, the expulsion of Russian diplomats was essentially symbolic, since they can be replaced. The net effect is zero, so there's absolutely no way this can be biographically significant; therefore, I have removed it. I further submit this was added to the article to lessen the impact of the previous sentence, which exactly the kind of false balance we should be trying to avoid. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The consulate remains closed, so where would any replacement diplomats go? "False balance" is a spurious claim that cuts both ways; I'd like this article to deal with facts more than opinions. — JFG talk 13:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still not biographically significant. And frankly, I could read the hidden "but" at the beginning of the sentence you added, making it seem more like you were trying to use narrative to lessen the impact of the previous sentence. Honestly, you should really seek consensus before adding things to the article, because so many of your content additions are getting challenged. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The hidden "but" is in your head only, my friend. I suppose that if I removed the alleged plans to revoke sanctions against Russia, you would insist that it is "biographically significant". Or can I go ahead and remove this non-event? — JFG talk 13:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely separate issue; however, I agree with you that is a non-event and I would support your removal of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. Let's see the next challengers! — JFG talk 14:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Helsinki Summit
Can someone add info about the Summit in Helsinki on July 16th? Merimiesei (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 11:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong article for news about an upcoming event in the presidency. Certainly it is not biographically significant as this time, particularly as it hasn't even happened. It should be in Presidency of Donald Trump, and it can be argued it is a bit premature even for that. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Meeting announcements are not worthy of inclusion in a bio. I'm not sure they should be included in the presidency article. What is important is the impact of such a meeting, if any.- MrX 🖋 12:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This meeting has been expected ever since Trump was elected, it was even a campaign theme. A short sentence is warranted. — JFG talk 12:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That fact is already covered in the article. The scheduled date and venue are trivial details. I'm not a fan of pulling the WP:RECENTISM card, but wring these articles like a daily log is a poor reflection of our considerable collective writing abilities. We can do better.- MrX 🖋 12:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; let's see what other editors think. — JFG talk 13:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Excessive sources in "Racial views" section
Per WP:OVERCITE I do not believe that we need more than one or two sources to support each statement in the article. The "Racial views" section had many instances including three or more sources, so I trimmed each group of citations to one or two. reverted, stating a fear that some editors may later remove material as not being verified in sources. I was very careful to keep the highest-quality sources and to make sure they fully support the article statements, so that I consider this fear unfounded. If other editors remove article text later, that will be easy to challenge at that time. Therefore I am requesting to restore my version. — JFG talk 13:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy Monday! That essay is terrible. This is very controversial content which has been repeatedly challenged on the basis of WP:UNDUE and other for specious reasons. For example, the sentence "Trump has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions that are perceived as racially motivated." stated in Wikipedia's voice is very controversial. Citing four excellent sources shows that we did put some effort into determining if that view is widely-held and it gives readers easy access to resources for their further research. On the other hand, there is little to no upside to removing sources. Similarly, you removed http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-surrogates-spin-birther-narrative/, a very important source for one of the most contentious conspiracy theories promoted by Trump and his courtiers. Surprisingly, you even removed two excellent sources for the sentence "His remarks were condemned as racist worldwide, as well as by many members of Congress." which is another fact stated in Wikipedia's voice and requiring strong evidence. - MrX 🖋 14:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Look not at the sources I removed, but the sources I kept. Excessive citations are often counter-productive, as some readers wonder why a statement should be shored up by so many sources if it's not contested. Granted, this whole section is pretty bad prose anyway, and I'm not touching it. — JFG talk 14:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I did. Please explain why you think four sources is counterproductive. I dispute that readers are scratching their heads wondering "Four? Why not only three?" - MrX 🖋 14:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Virtually every source JFG removed are opinion pieces which you restored to this BLP --MONGO (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No they're not.- MrX 🖋 16:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are.
 * Back to the topic: Excessive sourcing is bad for an article (as is well-explained in WP:Citation overkill and by JFG re: "shored up"), so good on for taking care of it and keeping good sources to support the content.  <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;">✉ ✓ 17:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to seek consensus for removing the sources, but you may want to shore up your argument with more than an essay and a "me too".- MrX 🖋 17:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think the sources are excessive in this case, given the highly controversial nature of the content. If one is worried is about clutter, then we can try a WP:CITEBUNDLE. Neutralitytalk 20:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My take: Except for the visual clutter issue, it's hard to have too many quality sources for controversial content. My longstanding rule-of-thumb on visual clutter has been no more than 3 consecutive cites. These look a little worse because they are all 3-digit numbers, but I don't consider that sufficient cause to reduce the rule-of-thumb number. I took the liberty of bundling the first series of 4. The second series of 4 includes two cites used elsewhere, making bundling that one a little more problematicthose two would have to be duplicatedso I'll wait for feedback before doing that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Reduction in pre-July 2016 politics material
I've made this diff in a sandbox to reduce the material on pre-July 2016 campaign material.

Things that may be controversial:
 * I'm merging the pre-2015 politics section with the campaign section.
 * I add a sentence Trump's presidential ambitions were generally not taken seriously at the time. (sourced to )

Less controversially:
 * Removing a bunch of poll data.
 * Removing excess detail about party registration changes.
 * Removing information on campaign contributions (including a scandal I've never heard of).
 * Removing information on primary debates.
 * Reducing information related to CPAC.

Comments/thoughts? I'll plan to make similar changes to the live article tomorrow, based on discussion here. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's going to take me a while to digest all that, but I will have some comments after my headache goes away and my keyboard stops acting like an Apple.- MrX 🖋 18:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting initiative, thanks. I would keep the CPAC 2011 speech, because it is, as we note, credited for helping kick-start his political career within the Republican Party. His political ambitions were not taken seriously before that (not that they are taken seriously now, even at the Resolute Desk). Therefore, OK for the citation saying he was not taken seriously. OK to remove lots of speculation and stale polls for 2011–2013. OK to reorder chronologically the 2015 piece where he decides to leave The Apprentice while planning his presidential run. We should keep Trump said his wealth would make him immune to pressure from campaign donors., because that was a strong part of his message and popular appeal. OK for trimming the 2016 primary campaign; the general election campaign could be trimmed as well. — JFG talk 19:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this, and thanks for bringing it here for review. Offhand this looks good to me. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with JFG that Trump said his wealth would make him immune to pressure from campaign donors. should be kept.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  00:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OR.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me.- MrX 🖋 01:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I won't touch the content on Trump's wealth impacting his campaign, and I'll try to leave some material about 2011 CPAC in this time. I'll do this in two diffs; one with the content changes, and a follow-up one with the header changes (in case somebody wants to revert that separately). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And done (diff). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus #29
There is a dispute about how current consensus #29 should be worded.

JFG prefers:

I prefer:

I think it's important to include what the vast majority of editors actually supported, rather than a vague "some form" that a tiny minority supported.

Let's see if we can come up with something we call all live with that accurately reflects the outcome of the RfC.- MrX 🖋 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is clear (given the often fractious editing environment here) that it is explicitly spelled out, as MrX as suggested. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The RfC closer explicitly wrote: This close doesn't lock down an exact wording of what the article should say, and that will need to be modified anyway as things develop further. There is no support for a version of the prose or another; the discussion about exact proposed wordings fizzled out. In such a case, it's best for everybody to let the article evolve, while noting that the RfC does mandate mentioning this issue "in some form" (closer's wording). Indeed, the text has already evolved with no disputes, which is nice to see. — JFG talk 15:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) When a consensus is unclear or disputed, we don't seek a consensus about that consensus; that's the function of an uninvolved closer. The short version above accurately reflects admin 's close statement, and it should be restored to the list pending an assessed consensus for the exact wording, which does not yet exist. I took a look at that and to my eyes it's about as clear as mud. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Process wonking aside, I have challenged the closing with the closer, for reasons explained above. It's important that the closing statement accurately describe the consensus, which I believe is not the case here.- MrX 🖋 16:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You added item #29 to the consensus list after the RfC. MrX has now removed it entirely. What do you think? — JFG talk 16:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Awilley should clarify the close. Neutralitytalk 22:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The consensus was to include coverage of the family separation policy in the article. It explicitly didn't lock down a wording, so quoting the originally proposed wording in the consensus statement doesn't make sense to me. On the other hand summarizing the consensus as "mention in some form" implies brief mention which some but not all of the supporting editors wanted. If I were writing the consensus statement I would probably just say that consensus was to include it and drop the "in some form". ~Awilley (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support
 * The link will make it clear enough what was supported. - MrX 🖋 17:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Simple and clear. We don't even need to repeat "consensus", given that this is the consensus list. Just: Mention the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. — JFG talk 18:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not "mention"; "include". - MrX 🖋 18:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not including the policy, we're mentioning it. Call me a grammar nazi! How about this: Include a description of the Trump administration family separation policy. This indicates that we must give this policy some substantive text, not just a passing mention, which I think addresses your concern. Specifying "in the article" looks redundant – where else? — JFG talk 18:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the discussion here, that vague statement is a POV magnet for denial of Trump's actions and the surrounding events. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to be a fact Nazi, but how about: Consensus to include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article.? That should satisfy all the angels dancing on all the pin heads.- MrX 🖋 20:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Works for me. No need to say "consensus" though, that's obvious; just start with "Include material…" — JFG talk 17:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll go with the well parsed-sentence above, "Consensus to include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article." The actual text proposed at the beginning of this discussion is not as good as the subsection currently in the article. BTW what is in the article needs to be kept current; it is already out of date. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To make it very clear: I am not supporting either of the proposals at the head of this discussion. I am supporting the modification of the first version proposed by MrX immediately above this comment. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

MrX said: The link will make it clear enough what was supported. That sounds to me like he's saying there is a consensus for exact wording evident in the discussion. I don't see said consensus, but if one exists it should be closed that way and the exact wording should be stated in the list. To do otherwise is to beg for avoidable conflict later. Apologies if I misinterpret MrX's comment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I support the second as both the better version and more in line with the RFC.Casprings (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on consensus?
It's a bit kafkaian, but here we are, debating whether we have consensus on how to document an RfC-adjudicated consensus. There is only limited support for the long form that includes an exact text, whereas the situation has evolved and is still evolving since the RfC was closed, so that setting a text in stone looks counter-productive. The amended short-form proposal that seems to have enough support would be:

Who agrees? Who disagrees? Who suggests something else? — JFG talk 01:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the link?- MrX 🖋 01:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, we link to the RfC as usual; let me add it right now. — JFG talk 01:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, that RfC title gives us a more precise suggestion here:
 * Isn't it better? — JFG talk 02:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I already made it clear that I support the the version of the short sentence proposed by MrX. And that I opposed an "exact text" version which is actually inferior to what is in the article now. JFG, you are proposing to omit the words "Consensus to...", and I see that none of our other consensus statements start with that phrase, so I am OK with that change as well. And I am OK with specifying the section it would go in. Since MrX was the one who proposed the long version with the exact wording, as well as the better worded "include material" version of the short version, I am a little unclear what he is proposing; User:MrX, can you clarify? JFG,  you say there "is only limited support" for the exact-text version, but I don't see a clear majority for either of those two original proposals, or for your revisions, at this time. --MelanieN alt (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Melanie; I don't mean that any version has consensus yet, that's why I'm trying to recap and help us reach a conclusion that is acceptable to everybody, so we can move on. — JFG talk 02:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW it should be noted that the closer, Awilley, did NOT mean to specify an exact wording and does not favor that approach. --MelanieN alt (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the first version in this section. I have retreated from supporting the long version with the text proposed in the RfC, with the understanding that we can refer back to the RfC for guidance.- MrX 🖋 10:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the first version in this section. I have retreated from supporting the long version with the text proposed in the RfC, with the understanding that we can refer back to the RfC for guidance.- MrX 🖋 10:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, been mostly out of reception the past couple of days. I'm fine with any of the last 3 suggestions and the differences between them are so minor that I can't see it making a measurable difference in the article. If MrX and JFG both agree on the 1st one in this section let's do that. ~Awilley (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. First one is acceptable but second one is more precise, specifying the immigration section, as that was included in the RfC title. Melanie supports it too., do you agree to settle on that version? , any remarks? — JFG talk 05:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No particular opinion provided nobody later asserts a consensus not shown in the list entry. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As I indicated before, I support the first one. I oppose the one with the words "Immigration" section". If we can ignore the fact that most editors voted for the specific proposed wording, we can also ignore the fact that a specific section was proposed. - MrX 🖋 11:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, go ahead and add it. — JFG talk 12:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  12:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

'The Apprentice' franchise
You added the sentence on the international version. I looked for a source on Burnett and Trump co-producing and found info on the BBC producers and one BBC News article on Trump producing which I added to the paragraph. Do you have any other references? The UK version seems to be the only successful and long-running international version. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding a source! No need to delve on other international versions here. I have condensed your new text a bit, as it was partly repeating the previous sentence. Hope you don't mind. Also, the section header does not benefit from specifying "The Apprentice franchise"; at the level of a Trump bio, "The Apprentice" is enough. Finally, are you sure it's worth linking to the UK version in the hatnote? I'd rather limit this to versions in which Trump himself participated, i.e. the original US version and the celebrity derivative. What do you think? — JFG talk 22:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Aren’t you in violation of AAR by reverting my edit? (I may be wrong - I usually am, so someone please enlighten me.)  You deleted "franchise" from the section title, I challenged by reinserting and started a discussion on the Talk page.  You reverted and then peremptorily - or should I say imperiously - added No need to delve on other international versions here to the Talk page.  Wasn’t gonna delve but maybe dwell a little or at least mention in passing. Most of the international versions seem to have bombed or died quietly and unlamented but it looks like a franchise to me. I haven’t found any sources on whether Trump benefited financially or not from all of them (he did and still does in the UK, according to the BBC), but he figured prominently in their promotions ("adapted from US version starring multimillionaire"). The borders between between what this article is lumping under branding and licensing, side ventures, media career, and even real estate, are fluid and pretty arbitrary because he’s always been promoting himself. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "or should I say imperiously" No, you should not. Please keep the civility restrictions for this page per WP:ARBAPDS in mind when communicating with other editors.  <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;">✉ ✓ 17:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if Trump was personally involved in some of the franchised versions, the header should remain brief, hence my preference for just The Apprentice. It is immeditely followed by a hatnote pointing to the main articles of individual versions, so that's clear enough for readers. If Trump was really co-producing the franchise, we could replace the UK link by the franchise link. — JFG talk 18:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for response from Galobtter who hasn't edited in a couple of weeks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:COMPULSORY. <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;">✉ ✓ 18:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as it says on my user page, I'm away till the end of July. The diff you linked to was of me shortening the heading..don't remember adding any sentence about an international version. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

– Sorry, my mistake - I assumed because you added "franchise" to the heading. – Seems that you were the culprit and that this edit had slipped your mind when you made this one. On November 22, 2016, you added the sentence about Trump and Burnett co-producing the international versions without citing any references, and on June 27, 2018, you removed the sentence with the edit summary that [Trump was] "Not involved in international versions (unless somebody finds a source)". That said, here comes my own mea culpa: I apparently blacked out reading my BBC source because I didn't notice that it only mentions the US versions. I've therefore deleted the sentence, the unrelated ref, and the UK series from the "Main" cross-ref. An unexpected side-effect of my latest round of research: Discovering Trump’s regular Monday appearances as a guest commentator on Fox & Friends, beginning in 2011. And - as an afterthought to the recently closed religion RfC - another incidence of Trump being "really honored" TIME. Starting to think that Trump's definition of "honored" is different from that of English language dictionaries. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, I had no idea I had added this tidbit two years ago; good I double-checked it recently to find the claim was dubious. I agree with your removal of the non-US versions, makes the section less cluttered. — JFG talk 21:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I must admit I miss the "goofy" picture of Trump from the 2015 campaign. Good old days! — JFG talk 21:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Even NYT mentioned that in an article https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html but I think now that we have a presidential portrait there is no need for such an image. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2018
Yaa240 (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC) dt is born december 2 1645
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: He's Methuselah?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Now, don't exaggerate. He's almost Andreas Werckmeister. &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  07:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Mention of Forbes ranking in the lede
Our third paragraph of the lede, the one about his business activities, currently ends with the sentence According to March 2018 estimates by Forbes, he is the world's 766th richest person, with a net worth of US$3.1 billion. Have we ever discussed this? I agree that we need to convey the extent of his wealth in some way in the lede, and we do have a significant section in the article on the subject. But to list a constantly-shifting and rather arbitrary ranking seems inappropriate for the lede. Can anyone think of a better way to convey his wealth - one that is more general, more generic, and will not need to be monitored and updated all the time? I don't really have a suggestion in mind, I am just looking for discussion and ideas. --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How about "During the campaign, Trump claimed a net worth of over $10 billion dollars and said that his net worth changes depending on how he feels day-to-day. Independent investigators have concluded Trump's claims are vastly overstated." <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why use a dated claim from the campaign? Trump did not suddenly start claiming to be rich or a billionaire at that point. Who are these "Independent investigators"? Are they RS's or just ant-Trump? How is it vastly overstated? Did they say his net worth was that he was not a billionaire or something? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We agreed back in 2016 to update the figure only once a year; I don't think that's an awful burden… — JFG talk 16:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * General, generic, stable: "Trump is a multi-billionaire." I'm not sure that's an improvement. I certainly don't have a problem with updating two figures in the lead annually. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that the lede already calls him the wealthiest president ever, I think we could dispense with the estimate completely. Interested readers can see that in the infobox. I'd rather remove it than resorting to vague statements. — JFG talk 16:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I propose we replace it with According to Forbes 2018 estimates, he has a net worth of US$3.1 billion. This version includes a wikilink to Forbes so interested readers can easily just click that. It does not specify the month March which is just the publication date and may lag from the research date, even though I admit that in the case of Trump this effect will probably be negligible. My proposal removes the ranking as being 766th richest person is hardly the most notable thing in the world for a man of this much notability. Furthermore it shortens the sentence in an already long lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I support removing "the world's 766th richest person" from the lead, and have no opinion on any other changes. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removing the ranking as well. Would keep the month to avoid any disputes. — JFG talk 17:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, we can even remove the date of estimate entirely. Proposed wording:
 * Thoughts? — JFG talk 17:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Forbes is a reliable source for this information. Unless it's contested by other reliable sources, we should just write "His net worth is estimated at $3.1 billion".- MrX 🖋 18:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Forbes is a reliable source for this information. Unless it's contested by other reliable sources, we should just write "His net worth is estimated at $3.1 billion".- MrX 🖋 18:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's clear to me that this article is more of a CV than a biography, so why does it matter? The fact that we include trivia about his ranking on a single publication's vanity list and his defeating 16 opponents in a primary (as if it we're reporting basketball scores), while ignoring far more relevant content that reaches back 40 years means we're failing our readers miserably. Hell, you can't even tag material without someone swooping in to spuriously remove the tag. I oppose any major changes to the lead until the glaring issues in paragraph two are addressed in a meaningful way. That should be the priority. - MrX 🖋 17:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * An indication of his net worth is not trivia; I'd rather remove the extended trivia about being the oldest and wealthiest president, fifth to lose the popular vote, etc. In prior discussions, we were debating which estimate to use and we settled on the yearly Forbes list, which has a pretty solid reputation. No reason to switch to another source, or to somehow elude the fact that Trump is very wealthy. Discussion about what you consider "glaring issues in paragraph two" should continue in the above thread. — JFG talk 17:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * His wealth is not trivial; the Forbes ranking absolutely is, irrespective of their "reputation". Yes, I do think the other listverse trivia should be removed as well, but not so we can make room for more PolitiCruft™. How about some nice cohesive paragraphs that artfully summarize the essence of the subject?- MrX 🖋 18:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Forbes list is nonsense. Trump's wealth comprises privately-held assets and enterprise values. This is simply not verifiable by the likes of Forbes. Indeed, we know that it is unreliable -- first because Trump's wealth is not in publicly-reported or -valued assets, necessitating all kinds of assumptions and estimates -- and second, because we have RS accounts of his attempts to manipulate Forbes. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg made their own independent estimates, and they are in the same ballpark as what Forbes has stated ($3B). They are naturally way lower than what Trump has claimed for himself ($10B+). Those are the best estimates that are publicly available, and they are highly credible. Trump has been submitted to so much scrutiny over decades, that if those numbers were far off the mark, that would have come to light. — JFG talk 19:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless you mean that Mike Bloomberg himself made the estimate, I'm afraid that $60,000/year Bloomberg reporters are more or less as ill-equipped as their Forbes counterparts to figure out how much Mr. Trump is worth. It's just drivel and we're not here to reflect self promotion, drivel, trivia, or nonsense. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your disparagement of Bloomberg and Forbes reporters is unfounded. If you have better sources, present them. — JFG talk 20:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that the estimates are made by $60,000/year reporters as opposed to $150,000/year analysts? Aren't you the one always complaining about original research on this page? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Analysts?" What like securities analysts? Working at websites to push clickbait fodder? Huh? I've placed dozens of stories with financial journalists and they are bright, hardworking, earnest, and more or less easily deceived by the likes of Trump (although never by me.) This is not my OR -- it's known to anyone who's familiar with journalism and the trade press in any industry. Part of what we do here is evaluate sources and article content. These top ten list clickbait cover stories are not worth the paper they aren't written on.  <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think SPECIFICO makes a good point. If major publications can't agree on a number (and apparently for good reason), we should treat the numbers as suspect. Perhaps we should say "sources estimate his wealth between X and Y".- MrX 🖋 20:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG said above that Forbes and Bloomberg are in the same ballpark on Trump. Do you dispute that? If they are within about 20% I dispute your premise that "major publications can't agree on a number". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyway, if you allow your personal knowledge to supersede reliable sources, it's original research. If you have any information that Forbes is not considered a reliable source for this kind of information, please present it. Or we can take a field trip to RSN. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that JFG said that. I don't think we should be talking about ballparks of uncertainty that would feed a small nation. We have the option of expressing it as a range or leaving it out. I guess we could also examine other sources and see whether more of them support the Forbes figure or the Bloomberg figure. Or maybe former television personality Larry Kudlow has some thoughts about it.- MrX 🖋 21:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This species of specious list-gossip chatter is not subject to the same standards of rigor that Bloomberg sometimes applies to some of its news reporting. Forbes I would not even dignify with the term "news reporting" in any context. This is simply not fact it's chit-chat for the bourgeoisie. "Forbes Capitalist Tool" -- Inside baseball for the capitalist-admiring masses. It's horse-pucky for the rest of us. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion here that we remove "he is the xxxth richest person in the world". Several people have suggested removing it; does anyone want to keep it? If no one objects in next 24 hours or so we could probably go ahead and delete that - while continuing to discuss how to get some idea of his wealth across. Good suggestions so far, keep 'em coming. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC) P.S. I am seeing quite a bit of support for listing the Forbes annual number, as per Emir and JFG and MrX with slightly different versions; how do people feel about that general concept? --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Other sources like Bloomberg Billionaires Index and Wealth-X list it at $2.84B and ≥$3.8B, so other sources do at different times give different estimates. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How about we just say his estimated assets are approximately 3 billion?--MONGO (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would work for me, but it's net worth not assets. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool!--MONGO (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact is that everything we see and associate with him -- the things that lead folks to believe that he is wealthy -- may very well be paid for by his investors, who profit from the appearance of wealth at the core of his brand. Plenty of folks say he's worth far less than $1 billion, let alone a multiple of that. We can just say he claims to be very wealthy and promotes a lifestyle and appearance consistent with that.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's mostly OR. Plenty of folks say he's worth far less than $1 billion - "Plenty of folks" is not a reliable source. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, I had assumed that you were more familiar with RS discussions of his wealth and business adventures. Do you really think anyone proposed to cite "plenty of folks"?? Nah. Stick on point. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's definition, Trump is a billionaire. We don't need to say how may billions, and we don't need the non-standard (and terribly gauche) "multi-billionaire" either. It should simply say this:

That's all we need. The citation can refer to the March 2018 article where specifics are given that can verify the term. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable -- and if there is no article about his claims of wealth and the like, that would be a good one to start. That's where we can air all the evidence and issues. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing creating "Wealth of Donald Trump"? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, do you think it's a good idea? Surely it's a notable topic. I'm not likely to have the time to work on it soon, but that would be the place to assemble the many sources that apparently are not known even to some of our most active editors. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is something that has crossed my mind multiple times and I was surprised it did not exist. The problem would if it would comply with WP:NOTEVERYTHING. There is no doubt that there is lot of sources about his wealth and wealth estimates differing from Forbes, but I wonder how an encyclopedic article could be made with the article just becoming a list of every Forbes estimate and this would literally be thousands if not more with their real time estimates. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's quite a lot of RS discussion of Trump's claims of wealth, the evidence relating to specific claims, and the strengths and weaknesses of various independent estimates, of which Forbes is only the most famous. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is true but I struggle to see how it could form an encyclopedic article and not fall into some essay style analysing the multiple claims or even worse falling into WP:OR. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Recap
As noted by, we seem to have consensus to remove the "world's 766th richest" ranking. For the mention of his wealth, we have a few options on the table: Exact phrasing can change, but these are the main choices as regards the level of detail we want to cover. All of this is corroborated in the article's "Wealth" section. What do y'all think is the most appropriate level of detail for the lede? — JFG talk 04:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Option A: say nothing, just keep the link to "wealthiest president ever".
 * Option B: He is a billionaire.
 * Option C: His net worth is roughly $3 billion.
 * Option D: Forbes estimates his net worth to $3.1 billion.
 * Option E: Financial publications have estimated his net worth to roughly $3 billion.
 * Option F: Financial publications have estimated his net worth to roughly $3 billion, while he claims "more than $10 billion" and some commentators place it as low as $250 million.
 * adding Option G (as proposed during discussion): Since he is a successful businessman, he has a net worth of several billion dollars and provides employment opportunities for over 20,000 people. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * adding option H (as proposed during discussion): Keep it as it is, i.e. According to March 2018 estimates by Forbes, he is the world's 766th richest person, with a net worth of US$3.1 billion. --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I support D or E. A omits an important fact, B is too vague, C begs the question "says who?", F is too much non-credible detail. — JFG talk 04:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as is - Generally seems not worth recovering the ground again (and question propriety of suddenly announcing prior consensus (not looked at) is tossed in favor of whatever shows up within 24 hours, and 'no change' is not even given as an option) -- weak second remark stick with previously discussed standard of Forbes should still remain. There's an archives search box at the top of this page that shows how much Forbes has been discussed, Forbes has a high WP:WEIGHT in external coverage (a simple google shows 45 million hits), Forbes dollar amount as being a billionaire and relative standing in the Forbes list] is often listed in articles and WP lead of BLP articles as apparently regarded as biographically important even when there are other things in their life they might be better known for. (e.g. Michael Bloomberg, Elon Musk, Carl Icahn, Zhou Qunfei).  This *is* still supposed to be a BLP article.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A,B,C or D all work for me. Or, (G) "Since he is a successful businessman, he has a net worth of several billion dollars and provides employment opportunities for over 20,000 people"--MONGO (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Successful businessman" with no less than four bankruptcies and history of not paying his employees, taking away their health insurance, and telling porky pies about his net worth (which he conceals by being the first president in decades to conceal his tax returns from the American people). C'mon, Mongo. "G" is never gonna happen LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 22,450 employees work for the Trump Organization as of 9/2015. Do you deny he is worth billions as well made through business transactions and by promoting his business and of course himself.--MONGO (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually six bankruptcies so far. He also did not pay some companies he hired as the general contractor for a project, driving some of them into bankruptcy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In order of preference, A, B, C. I oppose D, E, F.- MrX 🖋 13:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer A. B is boring. C could use an additional modifier; “His net worth is estimated at roughly $3 billion.” Estimated and roughly may sound redundant. But, it is a very rough estimate as no one knows his liabilities; which is why I like A. O3000 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support A or B. More detail is unnecessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support D, second choice B unless there are other sources for the $3 billion figure, we should attribute it. "He is a billionaire" feels a bit colloquial, but is otherwise fine.  I oppose F and G, and am neutral on A, C, and E. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg Billionaires Index and Wealth-X list it at $2.84B and ≥$3.8B . AFAIK these are the only other sources that have a fairly recent claim. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support D עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * D is OK for a brief mention. A B and C are no good because they state this dubious claim in WP's voice.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Favor D or E; C is also acceptable as second choice. Neutral about B. Oppose A (his wealth is an important enough aspect of his biography to need to be explicitly handled in the lede), F (POV), G (POV), and H (don't include the world ranking). --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * E preferably with a note that list the Forbes, Bloomberg, and Wealth-X estimates in it but not in the lead itself. Second choices C,D,F,G. Oppose A and H. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I note that all of the options (except status quo H) change US$ to $. I think this is a good idea per MOS:CURRENCY, as $ is not ambiguous in this article. For conflict avoidance going forward, this change should be mentioned here so it is not seen as an oversight but rather as an explicit part of any consensus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * E preferably with a note that list the Forbes, Bloomberg, and Wealth-X estimates in it but not in the lead itself. Second choices C,D,F. Oppose A, G, and H. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A - I hadn't noticed that the third paragraph of the lead already mentions that he is the wealthiest person ever to assume office. D. Adding Bloomberg (i.e., Forbes and Bloomberg estimate his net worth at roughly $3 billion) to the lead would also be OK if the Bloomberg source is added to the Wealth section (currently we don't have it and it may be paywalled).  Either way, it's Trump hasn't released any tax returns since he lost the casinos; Forbes or anyone else's estimate based on largely unverifiable information doesn't belong in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * SUMMARY OF !VOTING AND VOTING

Bold denotes primary Support or Oppose.

Second paragraph
The second paragraph of the lead needs a make over. It's far too focused on Trump's persona during the campaign, and it notably omits the fact that he continues to emit falsehoods, and that a great many of his actions and comments are controversial. There also needs be some mention of the public perception of his racial views, along the lines of the first sentence of the 'Racial views' section. Any thoughts on how we can update this paragraph? - MrX 🖋 16:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. As has previously been discussed on this page, it is a very different matter for a candidate to make false statements and even to pander to some religious or ideological voter factions. RS discuss this behavior as being far more significant when an officeholder, POTUS, is lying about the operations, laws, and policies of the US government and his administration. RS also increasingly discuss this as a personality trait or a signature style of Trump as a public figure, clearly making such article text important for this biography article. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem. This paragraph is the one that has received the most scrutiny, to the point that almost every word has been adjudicated by community consensus. In particular, mentioning racial views has been rejected (#24 Do not include allegations of racism in the lead.) Since the relevant discussion in February, I don't see much new information about such views or criticism thereof that would change the consensus. But obviously, you can try. — JFG talk 17:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, "racial views" was not rejected; "Allegations of racism" was.- MrX 🖋 17:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on, you know damn well that all the talk about his purported "racial views" is a collection of allegations of racism. I don't see a way to mention racial views without alleging racism. If we want to quote his "racial views", all we can say is that he said he's "the least racist person", and that is not very convincing, is it? — JFG talk 19:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's not, and we have been through this before. We can simply say that Trump's words and actions have been described as racially charged at various point in his life, and increasingly so as he pursued and attained the office of president. That is backed by excellent sources that have covered it in exhaustive depth.- MrX 🖋 20:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the definition of allegation. עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't many of his public statements were controversial or false and His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. suffice? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I wasn't clear in the OP. The current wording is about his campaign. We're way past that.- MrX 🖋 17:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming someone is willing to pull together enough solid RS links, I'll support taking the "controversial or false" thing out of campaign context, possibly by moving it to the end of the para and changing "were" to "have been". But given the highly controversial nature I think that warrants a separate thread. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It's simply not credible on the one hand for us to decry RECENTISM and then on the other hand to call "consensus" on stale and outdated content that needs to be recast to reflect our subsequent and current knowledge and available sources. Let's get to the substance here and not "head 'em off at the pass". The current content is stale. BTW, to repeat myself, I'd be fine blowing up the "consensus list" if it's going to be a crutch or barrier that prevents article improvement. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To repeat myself, please discuss changes to established process separately. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is -- let's not use some list as an excuse to canonize and codify inaccurate Wikipedia articles. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that that's off topic in a content discussion, and it will not be resolved in one, so why distract from the content discussion by even mentioning it? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Because an editor cited list #24 to deflect from conversation about improving the article and I rebutted that. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your assumption of bad faith is noted. Look who's deflecting about process, in thread after thread after thread. — JFG talk 19:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry SPECIFICO, I don't see that. I do see an editor citing #24 because that's established process at this article. I also see you casting aspersions, with zero support from other editors, yet again. Speaking only for myself, you're becoming quite tiresome. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The list of consensus items is so that editors don't boldly edit over existing consensus. Besides, #24 is not what we're talking about. Let's stay on topic.- MrX 🖋 19:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a novel idea. Stay on topic. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Rough draft 1

Putting this draft out there as a thought starter to get the ball rolling.- MrX 🖋 20:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * His childhood??? — JFG talk 20:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yesss. If you ever have a chance, read some of the excellent 600+ sources already in the article that cover his military school and college years. - MrX 🖋 20:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I know all this, but since when do we mention childhood/teen observations in BLP ledes? If we just want to convey an impression of Trump's character, we already say he revels in controversy; whether it "helped further his business and political goals" is a matter of opinion, therefore totally undue. — JFG talk 21:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I Oppose this rough draft and the other suggestions here. In particular, I strongly oppose putting anything about his racial views or public perception of them in the lede. I also oppose the description of his personality as "brash and bombastic". We have nothing like this in lede of other biographies about presidents, and offhand I don't see anything about it in the article text here, which is the only place we could even consider adding it. To make an obvious point based on WP:LEDE, proposing to add it to the lede without any support from the text is a non-starter. If someone wants to start a separate discussion about moving the "controversial or false" material out of the campaign paragraph I am willing to look at that. And just to clarify: I assume you are not proposing to delete the opening sentence of that paragraph, "Trump entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries." --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead should cover significant points, irrespective o whether they have already been written into the body o the article. His brashness and bombasticness are an important thread in this biographical tapestry. 20:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs)
 * Per WP:LEDE: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. ... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. ... Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Come on, this is Wikipedia 101. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to say that the draft is a thought starter? It is not proposed to be plunked into the article as is. Helpful contributions to improving the second paragraph are welcomed.- MrX 🖋 21:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first sentence is detail that doesn't belong in the lead. - MrX 🖋 20:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Detail"? You have GOT to be kidding. Not include a sentence in the lede about the primary campaign, which was hotly contested, lasted for a front-page-coverage year, and has its own separate Wikipedia article? And yet you want to add some uncited nonsense about his brash and bombastic personality? Please let’s refocus on what the lede is supposed to do: summarize the most important parts of the article. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The primary campaign would be lead worthy for the campaign article or perhaps the presidency article, but not this one. On the other hand, Trump's enduring character has been extensively written about and would make this a better biography .- MrX 🖋 01:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the draft was to get others to participate in improving this content, not to suggest that it be put in the article in that form. What are your ideas?- MrX 🖋 20:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Leave it alone. The proposals I have seen so far are not improvements. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear from others if you don't mind, but your comments are noted.- MrX 🖋 01:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have concerns about that sentence as well. Any diversion of this sort which focuses on describing Trump's character is frought with POV pitfalls, especially where the woridng implies that these are his innate qualities that have been attested throughout his life.  If attempted at all in the article (and I question the encyclopedic value of focusing too much attention here when there is so much to say about his actions, statements, and policies and their impact) it would need to be done where proper context and careful attribution can take place.  Shoe-horning in a statement which (no matter how carefully crafted) is always going to be received by a substantial number of readers as a "have you heard the mouth on this guy?" dog whistle--and more broadly, is just always going to be too problematic as an NPOV matter, if placed in the lead.  If we engage at all in a discussion of Trump's social character, we need a larger palette to state these matters and base them in well-attributed sourcing such that they have a neutral flow.


 * I'm much more open to discussion of the race issue in the lead. If we were talking about anyone less controversial in general, discussion of some of his blatantly racist statements would be taking place in the first few sentences, and I see no reason to omit commentary on those statements from the lead altogether.  Personally, I think "racially-motivated" is inaccurate though; this is a turn of phrase that is usually reserved for when someone says something that, on its face, has nothing to do with race, but which observers believe is in fact motivated by race, because it impacts upon racial issues.  Trump's controversial statements with regard to race, on the other hand, tend to be expressly about race (Mexican "rapists" and so forth).  So I would favour "racially-charged", or some such, as the descriptor.  Some of his policies, on the other hand, could be reasonably described as "racially-motivated".  I don't know how firmly established the previous consensus was for keeping race out of the lead, so I don't know if it is pragmatic and appropriate to re-litigate the matter at this time, but my personal impression is that it is WP:DUE; not many sitting presidents in the modern era have gone on public record to make the racial comments that Trump has. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 01:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not attached to the "brash and bombastic" piece, or really any other characterization of his personality in the lead. I only threw it out there because several biographical sources touch on it and the lead seems to be lacking something that encapsulates who Trump is or a summation of what makes him special. I tend to agree that if we are to summarize his racial attitude, then "racially-charged" seems about right. Note: I wrote "racial attitude" instead of "racial views" specifically to avoid the typical objection that Trump's only racial view is that he is not racist. - MrX 🖋 02:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, his only self-attested racial view, anyway. I personally feel confident that there is enough of a wealth of sources talking about his other interpreted/received racial views that we could discuss them, even in the lead--provided that they are well-attributed and do not reflect a value judgement in Wikipedia's voice.  Along the same lines, I understand why it is a non-starter to describe Trump as a racist in the lead, but there's nothing in terms of policy restraining us from noting that some of his statements and proposed policies have themselves been viewed as racist, by a large number of both primary and secondary sources (and a huge swath of the world's population).  That's just fidelity with the sources and reality and doesn't require personal interpretation or synthesis on our part.  Nor is this something that needs to be constrained to the article on his presidency; he has a history of controversial behaviour in this regard that goes much further back into the public record. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 02:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well said.- MrX 🖋 11:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose this rough draft and the other suggestions here as insufficient cause to stir up things, apparently done on whim or just editor preference.  This article should be following the guides of WP:BLP and WP:LEAD, seek to focus on Biographical information, and must be written conservatively.  UNDUE insertion of opinion editors and critics is not appropriate.  Reproduction of the Presidency article is not desired.  Jumping to edits in the lead is to be discouraged.  Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The current lead give undue emphasis to the campaign, and Trump's Forbes ranking, and undue lack of coverage of Trump's racial views which have been the subject of extensive, sustained coverage. WP:LEAD requires that we cover all significant points in the article, of which Trump's racial attitude stands out as a very important one. Your interpretation of BLP seems to be that anything negative about a subject can't be covered in the lead. Or perhaps you are interpreting "must be written conservatively" in a political sense. In my view, we cannot omit something as pervasively and extensively reported as Trump's racial stance simply because people don't like it, or because they prefer to see the lead filled with laudatory praise of Trump's stunning wealth, golf courses, and brilliant political achievements. - MrX 🖋 10:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose all of it. Not sure why the changes since we just got through talking about all these points recently, or least in last 6 months anyway.--MONGO (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to shut down this discussion because the first working draft was not perfect. WP is not the platform for hagiography of public figures. Moreover, even Americans who support Trump for his role in promoting a certain political agenda routinely discuss his many deviations from established standards and expectations. I think the deleted wording about his public manner can be restored later in some form, as it relates to article content. Meanwhile I suggest removing the "or controversial, and many have been perceived as racially motivated" from its current location, since the false statements are not confined to race-related matters. I would locate it instead at the end to read "His election and policies have been controversial, and many have been perceived them to be racially motivated." I think we should offer suggestions to OP and let him be the one to edit the proposed text so that we do not end up with half a dozen alternative versions, since we know from past discussions that these are difficult to resolve. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 11:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)T


 * Comment For comparison, here's the relevant part of Barack Obama's lead: In 2008, he was nominated for president a year after his campaign began and after a close primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. He was elected over Republican John McCain and was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. For Bill Clinton: Clinton was elected president in 1992, defeating incumbent Republican opponent George H. W. Bush. At age 46, he became the third-youngest president and the first from the Baby Boomer generation.  For George H. W. Bush: In 1988, Bush ran a successful campaign to succeed Reagan as President, defeating Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Clinton and Bush examples do a much better job of covering only the significant points.- MrX 🖋 18:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Further reductions in "Political career"
All of these may be somewhat controversial:


 * A: Should the "Financial disclosures" section be merged into "Wealth"? Some discussion of tax returns would also need to be merged to "2016 Republican presidential primaries".
 * B: Is "Political positions" necessary, now that most of these are discussed at greater length under various subsections of "Presidency"? A few of these should stay at "2016 general election campaign"; "build the wall" in particular needs to be mentioned somewhere in this section.
 * C: Should "Campaign rhetoric" be merged with various sections in "Public profile", including those on "False statements"? I think there's a sense that Trump's rhetoric wasn't unique to the campaign; he had talked the same way before running, and he continues to talk the same way as President.
 * D: Should the "Protests" section be removed completely? The link to Protests against Donald Trump should stay somewhere, the rest feels very unnecessary here.

I also have thoughts about the "White supremacist support" section that will take longer to write up (and I will do so in a separate discussion); the "Sexual misconduct allegations" may get moved around but I don't plan to suggest significant changes to it. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2018
74.140.48.236 (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

hi! please, add to the "donald trump" page under books: "Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump." the author is harry hurt III & published in 1993 (reprinted in 2016).

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-wife-donald-trump-made-me-feel-violated-during-sex https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Tycoon-Lives-Donald-Trump/dp/1626543941

thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.48.236 (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌ - WP:UNDUE for this article, but the book is already listed in Bibliography of Donald Trump, which is linked from the Books section of this article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2018
In the introduction, the sentence "His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false" shows very clear political bias on the part of the editor: I recommend taking out the "or false" part as it is clearly a case of the writer's bias. When I read a Wikipedia article I expect to read facts, not someone's overt bias against a prominent figure.

Quite frankly, as a reader I am offended reading statements like this: it is as if the writer is trying to tell me how to think instead of presenting unbiased information to me. It also makes me question the overall truth value and validity of this page. 96.236.208.42 (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Gain consensus for any changes first, but the label "false" is widely used by reliable sources and doesn't need removal unless there's consensus to do so  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You might also read the thread immediately preceding this one. Wikipedia's difficult mission is to accurately reflect reliable sources, not to avoid offending readers. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My concern about the inclusion of "or false" isn't that it's biased or incorrect. (While I haven't looked at the sources I trust there has been sufficient vetting of the multiple sources supporting the claim.) My concern is that it is bad English. I suspect any competent English teacher would be marking this up with red pencil if it appeared in a student paper.


 * Virtually all campaigners have a finite budget for media and that budget is not enough to buy all the media they would like. Thus, generally speaking, candidates are happy when they get free media coverage (with some exceptions which we will get to very shortly.) Candidates often have to worry about whether to make bland statements which don't say very much (to avoid turning off potential voters) or to make more controversial statements which will simultaneously turn off some voters but attract some others, and ideally will generate some free media coverage. It is without dispute that Trump was at the controversial end of the spectrum, so the statement that many of his public statements were controversial is support for the "extensive free media coverage" aspect of the sentence.


 * False statements are a different kettle of fish. I'll repeat—I'm not disputing the word, but while controversial statements lead to free media coverage that is almost always positive, false statements are little more problematic. If a candidate makes a statement that gains media coverage solely so the media can refute it and paint the candidate as a liar, this technically might generate free media coverage but the implication of the rest of the sentence is that free media coverage is desirable. While there is a famous statement that any coverage is positive as long as you get your name spelled correctly, I doubt that experts fully concur.
 * Actually, OR is relevant, but I suggest you have it almost exactly backwards. The linkage between "controversial" and "free media" does have some missing steps, and argually takes some OR to link the two, though it is my opinion that this reach isn't too far. The problem is that linking "false" statements with "free Media" does require some OR (or the filling in of the missing steps), so I object to the juxtaposition of "false" and "free media". I don't know why you repeated that it is a fact that he makes false statements - I don't think I could have been clearer, but I'll repeat. Duh yeah, of course. My issue isn't that it's false (so to speak) but that the juxtaposition of false statements with free media is a false linkage.


 * Arguably, a statement that is controversial and turns out to be false might generate some free media coverage and it might be a net positive if there is substantial coverage at the time of the statement, but less coverage of the rebuttal of the claim. In some cases, statements by candidates are covered only because they have been shown to be false. It's hard to imagine this being positive.


 * In summary, the sentence without the closing two words is relevant news or the an undeniably supportable. Adding "or false" leads to a whole host of questions that need answering, which is clearly beyond the scope of a summary sentence in the lead.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that you're getting too deep into analysis and possibly OR here. It's just a fact that he makes more false statements than have been documented for any other politician. So we just need a simple descriptive mention of that in the lead. As I and others have discussed above, the juxtaposition with "controversial" is unfortunate for reasons you allude to in your comment. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, OR is relevant, but I suggest you have it almost exactly backwards. The linkage between "controversial" and "free media" does have some missing steps, and argually takes some OR to link the two, though it is my opinion that this reach isn't too far. The problem is that linking "false" statements with "free Media" does require some OR (or the filling in of the missing steps), so I object to the juxtaposition of "false" and "free media". I don't know why you repeated that it is a fact that he makes false statements - I don't think I could have been clearer, but I'll repeat. Duh yeah, of course. My issue isn't that it's false (so to speak) but that the juxtaposition of false statements with free media is a false linkage.
 * The main article fleshes out the false statement nicely. It also discusses controversial statements (although the coverage is more meandering. The problem is the infusion of the two disparate ideas in the same sentence.


 * I'm simply observing that the sentence attempts to make two unrelated points in one sentence. That doesn't strike me as "too deep into analysis".-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I submit that any related discussion should be at . This thread and the preceding one both violated the principle of not fragmenting discussions, both were very forgivable from inexperienced editors, and both were immediately corrected for benefit of not only those editors but all others participating on this page. Sphilbrick, it's beyond me why you continued here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I apologize if you have created some structure I missed. I'm not a regular here, and have no idea how I should have known that my comment belonged elsewhere. Nor do I yet see how I should have known. It is standard in many places to close a discussion which is in the wrong place. Why not here? How are editors who rarely visit here supposed to know about unwritten rules?

I've now read the link you provided and suggest it was incompetently constructed. If I were presented with a choice between (A) "many of his public statements were controversial or false" or (B) "many of his public statements were false"  I'd probably go with (A) as well. Is it true that "many of his public statements were controversial or false"? Of course. So why on earth am I objecting (I hope you are asking)? Because the question asked omits that the entire sentence is:

His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false.

That construction leaves the impression that the post semi-colon points relate to the pre-semi-colon assertion. I am in full agreement that controversial statements led to extensive and net positive free media coverage, but I don't think one can say the same about false statements. The two concepts deserve discussion, but they should be separated. I see that one contributor to the discussion (O3000 ) made that point, but I think it got lost, becuase the beginning of the sentence was not mentioned.

That attempt to identify consensus should be thrown out because it was ill-formed. Let's start over with the full sentence. If a consensus wants to supported incompetent English phrasing, Ill not fight the consensus, but let's at least have the discussion. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)