Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Article on businesses owned?

Is there an article/list anywhere on Wikipedia that summarizes/lists Trump's business holdings? I was looking for one. This article gives a lot of detail of his business career, but those aren't necessarily current holdings. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

See hidden content at "The Trump Organization" in the box below the infobox. If you expand the content, you will see lists of links to other articles. I'm not aware of a separate article that summarizes all of that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, be aware that there is not a simple answer to this. The Trump Organization has many business endeavors that are not "holdings", i.e., not owned by the Trump Organization. Many are partnerships of one kind or another; there are many others, including high-profile Trump-branded properties, in which the TO has no ownership interest and merely licenses the use of the name. I doubt if even the officials of the TO themselves could give you a straightforward answer to this question. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mary Mark Ockerbloom: Trump's FEC disclosure form lists hundreds of businesses and subsidiaries. Also see List of assets owned by The Trump Organization, which was created recently but was nominated for deletion because most contents is duplicated from the main Trump Organization and List of things named after Donald Trump articles. And indeed you have the sidebar Template:Donald Trump series and the navbox Template:Trump businesses, which is to my knowledge the most complete. (Full disclosure: I contributed a lot to structuring this navbox.) — JFG ^talk 00:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you all, I appreciate the thoughtful responses. The navbox Template:Trump businesses is probably the closest to what I was looking for. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC at Washington, D.C. article

You may want to participate in the RfC at Talk:United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016. MB298 (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Need A New Lead Photo

This question has been widely debated. There is community consensus to wait for an official portrait. — JFG talk 06:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The unprofessional half-baked photo of this article does not reflect proper standards for photos for politicians on WIkipedia, both republican and democrat are given the dignity of professional photos. The photo on this page is the product of what was known as a "never-trumper" and that kind of motivation should be irrelevant in a neutral article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:200:E1C6:5456:C3B9:8127:B90E (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Many editors disagree with your opinion and find this particular picture perfectly acceptable. There is however consensus to change it as soon as an official portrait becomes available. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 38#Trump Photo 2 Rfc for the latest discussion of this perennial proposal. — JFG talk 23:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Well, what JFG says isn't the whole story. No such photo presently exists, and this one is therefore an acceptable image when no professional or otherwise portrait-like image can be found in the public domain. When he takes office there will be an official portrait, at which time that will replace this one.   Spartan7W §   01:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC) I would hardly describe support for said photo as "many" when there are daily requests to change it. Archer Rafferty talk —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC) This has been discussed to death. Wait until there is an official WH photo. And fix the tags in your signature. Objective3000 (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC) I personally don't like the particular picture either, but as mentioned, there is consensus to replace it with the official White House portrait, but I didn't like any of the ones in the prev. RfC either, I personally prefer this one. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC) It is indeed an embarrassment. I am astounded at the tenacity of some in their insistence that this picture remain in one of the most visible articles of the project. It's bad. Marteau (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC) For the love of Jimbo, we just finished a 30-day RfC on the question. This, after an earlier 30-day RfC on the question, ending in the same consensus. How many 30-day RfCs must we endure before people are prepared to drop the stick and back slowly away from the infobox image? The issue is BEYOND resolved. I am truly sorry if some people were not aware of either RfC, that doesn't give one the right to resurrect the issue once again. This is newbie behavior. Somebody please add this to the list of hatted infobox image threads. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Barron Trump mention in infobox and navboxes

Donald Trump's youngest son, Barron, is mentioned in the infobox here with no link, which is fine because his article was deleted and redirected to Family of Donald Trump#Barron Trump per AfD. There is however inconsistency in other places where he might appear: he is not mentioned at all in Template:Donald Trump and he has been on and off Template:Trump family. There is an ongoing discussion about whether to mention him and whether to link him at Template talk:Trump family#Barron or not Barron. Please participate there to reach a coherent consensus. — JFG ^talk 17:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Lede wp:recentism

Why is most of lede (3/5 paragraphs) about his campaign and policies? He's lived a long life. A lot of the political stuff should be cut.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It's actually likely that the lede will be MORE about the "political stuff" once he becomes president. Being president tends to overshadow everything a person has done before. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a good thing, though, to remember to balance the recent with the old. The campaign stuff (including 2000 and 2012) can probably be trimmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Affirmative. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Trump identifies as a conservative, and..."

The lead includes the sentence "Trump identifies as a conservative, and his ideology has been described by scholars and commentators as populist, protectionist, and nationalist"

If we are to include the views of "scholars and commentators", it is a startling omission and even a misrepresentation of the discourse among scholars and commentators that the sentence doesn't mention how numerous scholars and commentators have described his political views with terms such as "far-right", "fascist", "Islamophobic", "anti-immigrant", "xenophobic", and many other terms that are much more widely used among scholars and commentators to describe his views than "protectionist" and "nationalist." In particular, there has been very serious and very extensive discussion over whether he can be described as a fascist; of course not everyone agrees that he is, but the opinion is held by many experts (political scientists, historians) and is debated seriously[1] and extensively in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Turns out there's no source for the "conservative" bit so I have removed it. Next step would be to evaluate the sources for those other more detailed descriptors and consider whether to add them to the article and if so, whether they belong in lede. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is a source. "When you get down to it, I am a conservative person. I am by nature a somewhat conservative person... I never looked at putting a label on myself, because frankly putting a label on myself, it didn't matter — I wasn't in politics... It was something that absolutely had no bearing on me."[2] Which is from August 2015, when he started running, and Jeb Bush was saying that Trump was not as conservative as Jeb Bush (and Trump was responding that like Reagan who ended up being a "pretty conservative" potus in Trump's words, Trump sees himself as "somewhat conservative" overall). Now, that should suffice to put the removed bit back into mainspace. Of course, there are a bunch of Donald-Trump-sayings about what he is, more broadly.[3] Trump self-identifies as a TON of other things, besides "somewhat conservative" per above, but none of them are a political ideology:

• "...a victim of one of the great political smear campaigns [during the general election] in the history of our country"[4]
• "We've actually expanded the party...I am a unifier [of factions within the Republican party]."[5]
• Part of the beauty of me is that I am very rich.
• I am a traditionalist [with respect to marriage]. I have so many fabulous friends who happen to be gay, but I am a traditionalist.
• I am very critical of illegal immigration and the tremendous problems including crime, which it causes.
• I am not a fan of John McCain because he has done so little for our Veterans....
• I am against any path to citizenship for undocumented workers or anyone else who is in this country illegaly. They should--and need to--go home and get in line.
• I'm very angry. Because our country is being run horribly. ...I'm angry because our country is a mess!
• On trade, I am going to issue our notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
• I am officially running for president of the United States, and we are going to make our country great again!
• I think I am a nice person. People that know me, like me. Does my family like me? I think so, right. Look at my family. I’m proud of my family.
• I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down, and will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.
• In this race for the White House, I am the Law And Order candidate. ... I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally.
• I’m going to make our country rich again. I am going to turn our bad trade agreements into great ones.
• My opponent asks her supporters to recite a three word loyalty pledge. It reads, "I'm with her." I choose to recite a different pledge. My pledge reads, "I’m with you – the American people." I am your voice.
• I am very underleveraged. I have a great company. I have a tremendous income. And the reason I say that is not in a braggadocios way. It's because it's about time that this country had somebody running it that has an idea about money.[6]

But this sentence is about his politics, and in particular, his political faction within the United States political parties. It is possible to be a conservative Democrat like Joe Manchin, and it is possible to be a liberal Republican like Susan Collins. In the demographic breakdown used by public polling, they separate people into dem/repub/indep groups (party self-identification), which mostly aligns with who-you-voted-for-in-2012 self-identification (Romney-voters and Obama-voters), but they also ask if you consider yourself to be VeryConservative/SomewhatConservative/Moderate/SomewhatLiberal/VeryLiberal, which is quite different. Trump is, in terms of his party-id, a former democrat in the previous millenium, who is currently an independent-turned-republican. Trump is, in terms of his ideological-id, "somewhat conservative". He is also simultaneously nativist and populist, which are more fine-grained subcategories within the overall 'somewhat conservative' broad-brush category. But although he is also, as he likes to say, "very rich" that is not a subcategory of his "somewhat conservative" political self-identification, that is a completely separate demographic metric. (I also don't think that Trump's self-identification as a Christian belongs in his political ideology sentence, because unlike say Rick Santorum his religious views are not *central* to his political stances.) That is not to say that the various things Tartaral brought up don't belong, just that they don't belong in this sentence, because they aren't core political ideologies. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Back on the 17th, SPECIFICO removed some uncited material saying that Trump self-identified as a conservative, which was found in two places in the article at the time.[7] The first modified sentence currently reads like this --

• 12/17 == Trump identifies as a conservative, and his ideology has been described by scholars and commentators as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His stances on a few social issues, such as LGBT rights and drug policy, have been described as liberal or centrist.
• 12/22 == Trump's positions have been described by scholars and commentators as populist, protectionist, and nationalist.
• I suggest the following rewrite ==

  Trump self-identifies as a "somewhat conservative" Republican, and his positions have been described as populist, protectionist, and nationalist.

  (...not sure whether we need to re-include his specific positions on lgbt + preemptive war + defederalization -- since that is what 'somewhat conservative' means, a person who is more conservative than not, but sometimes takes a moderate or centrist or liberal stance on specific issues)

References

Because we are quoting him directly, I think MOS says we have to include the cite, even though we are right in the lead sentences? But I'm happy to add the cited-sentence somewhere appropriate in the body (positions subsections) and then leave the self-identification bit in the lead paragraphs uncited. The other sentence which SPECIFICO modified was also about self-identification, but THAT one just seems wrong, as of 12/17 it read as follows: "Trump ran as a self-described conservative, particularly in social and religious matters. His campaign emphasized American patriotism..." So I don't want to restore that portion, unless somebody has cites which say Trump was the modern equivalent of Santorum'12 and Huckabee'08 -- he clearly was not, per WP:OR at least. Will someone please fix the ideology-sentence in the lead, as I've suggested above, with the politico ref? Thanks. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

electoral college in first paragraph

The first paragraph used to mention the electoral college but that is a very minor point not worth of the 1st paragraph and not very historical nor time honoured fact for a bio. Besides, it is potentially misleading without a major revision because while the electoral college meets on December 19, the results are not opened by a joint session of Congress until January. After January 19, each state mails a letter by registered mail, which takes time. Usernamen1 (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I would think right now, the vote of the Electoral College is hugely significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with how it stands at the moment, other than the line "expected to be formally elected" when sources are using phrasing such as "almost certainly" or similar. Marteau (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the current wording is fine. It will be interesting to see what the exact count comes out to be. There are often an elector or two who vote differently from how their state voted. When we do get the final count, it might be worth adding that his electoral college victory ranks 46th out of 58 presidential elections according to the NYT.[8] That would be valuable information to have in this article, if only because Trump keeps insisting that he won in a historic landslide. --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC

But does he read Wikipedia?? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that he has been elected, it could probably be removed, it does not appear to have long-term significance, at least at this stage. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

For those interested in the final counts, please see Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 -- as predicted by MelanieN there were a couple defections from Trump (one Hamilton Elector vote for Kasich'16 and one libertarian-leaning vote for RonPaul'12), but interestingly there were also five defections from Clinton, three Hamilton Electors voting for a compromise-repub (Colin Powell who worked for Reagan and GWB but then endorsed Obama'08) and two for progressives (Bernie and one of the Dakota pipeline protestors). I do agree that this type of gory-details-stuff does not belong in the lead of the Trump biography, or even in the body I would strongly suggest, but several of the individual details were historical footnotes (oldest person to receive an ecVote + 4th native american + first african american repub and so on). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Invalid infobox usage

Superseded by active RfC, below. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the invalid use of the infobox template. Anyone who wishes to bastardize it like that will need to explain themselves and seek a consensus agreement for such here. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC) 1. It's a regrettable fact that some editors sometimes perceive consensus where no consensus exists. 2. It's another regrettable fact that some editors deliberately misrepresent consensus. 3. Given 1 and 2, it is not reasonable to ask an editor to simply take your word for it. 4. From an overall efficiency standpoint, it does not make sense to require one editor after another to spend a half-hour of their lives searching the archives to find the discussion(s) and verify your assertion of consensus. I suggest that someone who was involved in that/those discussion(s) spend a few minutes to find it/them and create an entry at #Current consensuses and RfCs. That done, the revert editsum reads simply "See Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs, item 7". And one can hope that some of those reverts will not be necessary because the editor will consult the consensuses list first. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)  Done [9] — JFG talk 01:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you [10] ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC) I oppose this, as an RfC was never held and no consensus was achieved in the prior discussions. Edge3 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC) As a follow-up, I've reverted and wish to take this to RfC. Would you be open to further discussion? Edge3 (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC) See a related discussion here. Consensus has been contested several times, which means that there is no current consensus. Edge3 (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Here is my take after reviewing both discussions. 1. I agree we could use more participation before declaring a consensus either way. 2. The status quo as of 22 November, just before the first discussion, was no business title in the "office" section of the infobox. The consensus burden is therefore on you; i.e., it should stay out of the "office" field until you have a consensus to add it there. 3. I would suggest one more attempt at more participation, in this thread. I'll start that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Yes, now I understand the burden for establishing consensus. Maybe we can start the RfC on this thread? That way we can continue the discussion while inviting more people to participate. I was already preparing a draft when you responded, so I'll post that now. Edge3 (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC) I've reverted your reversion. There have been more than discussions on this topic, so I don't think the usual talk page format will achieve consensus in either direction. We've already opened up other RfCs on similar issues, so I don't think this is premature. Edge3 (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Status quo - Political/government title in the "office" field, other titles in the "occupation" field. Things like "businessman" and "television producer" would seem a better fit for "occupation", and the ideal solution might be something like an "other titles" field in {{Infobox officeholder}}. Barring that, I think this is the least bad solution. I also question whether those secondary titles need to be in the infobox at all; i.e., whether "businessman" and "television producer" wouldn't be just fine in "occupation". Oppose comparisons to other articles per WP:OSE; what those editors have decided has no bearing on this article, and inter-article consistency is never a primary goal except where the community has said so in a guideline. No such guideline exists at this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Chairman position in infobox

Superseded by active RfC, below. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Should his business career and role as Chairman of the Trump Organization be listed on the infobox? Given Trump's unusual career path to the presidency, I don't think the positions listed should be limited to solely political offices. Edge3 (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Look under "Occupation". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Yes, but the "Occupation" label is not equivalent to "office" parameters on the infobox. His business career is equally as notable as his political career. Edge3 (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC) This has been discussed and settled earlier. — JFG talk 17:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC) We didn't have full agreement on the earlier discussions. Edge3 (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC) In fact, I would argue that there was substantial support for adding "Chairman and President of The Trump Organization" as the 'office2' for the infobox in those discussions that you referenced. However, the "no" side kept reverting at that time. Edge3 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Personally I was in favor of using |office2= but I'm happy with |occupation= too. I don't see much point re-opening this discussion, given that the essential information is displayed in both cases. — JFG talk 19:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Yes, and I appreciate your desire to respect the outcome of those discussions. However, Rex Tillerson is Trump's pick for Secretary of State, and his article is already using the "office" parameters for his leadership position at ExxonMobil. Since the Trump Cabinet is likely to include several businessmen, once approved by the Senate, a broader discussion may be necessary. Would you object to an RfC on this topic? I know we don't like to resurrect prior discussions, but I think it would be useful for this matter. Edge3 (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Hello, just wanted to follow up and see whether an RfC would be necessary here? Edge3 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC) I believe in reserving RfC for the weightier issues, and this is not one. That may be why it hasn't received much attention. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC) This issue has come up several times, so I feel this might need to be resolved through broader discussion. Edge3 (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Greek priest picture

I've been asked to self-revert this edit that removed a picture of Trump being "blessed" by the so-called "hedge fund priest". Per WP:BRD (it was originally removed by another editor), I will not be doing this. Although the "blessing" is mentioned in the article, it does not seem to be all that notable and it is particularly odd given that Trump isn't of the Greek orthodoxy. I'm not seeing a compelling reason for having this in the article. In fact, I don't think the fact of the blessing is notable either, with little evidence of significant coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

A Wall Street hedge fund manager that is also a priest blessed DJT. Doesn’t seem notable for any mention. Objective3000 (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that both the photo and the trivia about being blessed should be removed.- MrX 17:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no comments on the picture itself. However, from a process standpoint, the Bold edit was the removal of the picture by Avaya1, which I Reverted, and Scjessey counter-reverted. Discussion should happen with the status quo ante, i.e. with the picture included. It was recently restored by MiamiDolphins3, so I guess we're good to discuss… — JFG ^talk 17:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I support the preceding and Oppose the image and the prose. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. If consensus swings the other way, the image and/or text can be restored.- MrX 18:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It's been included and removed a couple of times. It seems a bit misleading in front of the religion section, since it doesn't relate to the text. Avaya1 (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not having read the attached prose, it sounds like the picture belongs either nowhere, or in Donald Trump in popular culture perhaps? (Which I thought was a practice ended forever ago, but apparently InPopCulture never dies....) If the ceremony was actually religious, then obviously my suggestion would be wrong, but if the ceremony was more ceremonial/symbolic/publicityStunt/fundraising/similar in nature then it would count more as a campaign event, or more as an in-pop-culture thing, and we have subsidiary articles about both. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Coverage in Fox Business News, Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, etc. Trump, a Christian, asking for a blessing from Christian priest seem relevant to the “religious views” section. Support text Cypresscross (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Assorted suggestions

The talk page is for discussion about what should be in the article. It is not a forum to discuss the subject. MelanieN alt (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Malformed edit request, converted to discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC) 1) "wealthiest person" in the world -- Dispute as this cannot be confirmed without tax returns. 2) Electoral College: Won by 56.88, a margin of victory ranking only 46th out of 58 US presidential elections and near the bottom in the lowest one-fourth to one-fifth Electoral College victories in history. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/trump-landslide-nope/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/12/donald-trump/donald-trumps-electoral-college-victory-was-not-ma/ 3) Popular Vote: Trump’s opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made history winning the popular vote by almost three million votes. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-popular-vote-20161222-story.html http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/putting-post-election-demonstrations-in-context 4) Education: Fordham University, a Jesuit school in the Bronx, for two years, before transferring to the University of Pennsylvania and studied economics for two years, graduating in 1968 with a bachelor’s degree. The University of Pennsylvania is one of the eight private colleges and universities known for accepting the sons and daughters of famous and/or very wealthy people. Trump was accepted into the University of Pennsylvania with “respectable grades” through an admissions officer friendly with the Trump family. While at the University of Pennsylvania, Trump took undergraduate classes at Wharton School of Business but was not enrolled in Wharton’s prestigious MBA program. Despite inaccurate reports, “the commencement program from 1968 does not list him as graduating with honors of any kind” so Trump did not in fact graduate first in his class. “But since the election of George H.W. Bush in 1988, every president has had an undergraduate or graduate degree, or both, from an Ivy League school." In the 2012 election, both candidates had impressive graduate education, with Barack Obama graduating magna cum laude. Trump broke this trend by being the first president elect with only a 4-year degree. “The Trumps: Three Generations That Built an Empire,” by Gwenda Blair “New York Times” 1984 magazine by William Geist http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/24/a-college-degree-wasnt-always-a-must-for-u-s-presidential-candidates/ 5) Business Career: Timeline 1970s: Trump breaks into the Manhattan real estate market but racks up loss after loss. He is bailed out by his father. Early 1980s: …It's during this period that [Trump] puts together the parcels and financing for Trump Tower, one of his most successful projects. Mid 80s/early 90s: …[Trump] negotiates terrible deals for a USFL team, the Plaza Hotel, the Eastern Shuttle, and a yacht he never uses. He obsesses over plans to develop a grandiose project he called Television City, located on 57 acres of land along the Hudson River. But he bungles the deal and loses control. He builds casinos in Atlantic City, but especially mismanages them and loses a huge sum. By 1991 he's broke. He avoids personal bankruptcy partly by browbeating his bankers and partly by pleading for tens of millions of dollars in loans from his father and his siblings. Mid/late 90s: …Trump finally emerges in 1995, no longer broke but no longer all that rich either. …Then, in 1999, Trump's father dies, followed by his mother in 2000. Trump inherits roughly $70 million or so. 2000 and beyond: Building skyscrapers is now out of reach, since no one will lend Trump the kind of [funds] that takes. So he starts overpaying for golf courses instead. ...He licenses his name to developers from overseas who [still believe in his brand]. He lends his name to a seemingly endless string of … businesses — Trump steaks, Trump vodka, Trump radio—as well as questionable ventures —Trump University, Trump diets, Trump mortgages. Trump University suits were latter settled out of court for 25 million. In 2004, he hits the jackpot of random luck when reality king Mark Burnett chooses him to host The Apprentice, a show perfectly suited to Trump's talents for bullying and bombast. New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety that summarizes Trump's federal tax returns from the late 70s and chronicled by Kurt Eichenwald (also reported by other sources such http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/donald-trumps-first-30-years-business-failures-and-bailouts-dad Truth4All (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC) @Truth4All: Hello. This is not a properly formed edit request, per Wikipedia:Edit requests#General considerations, item 2. I am converting it to a normal discussion, but I don't know how workable it will be to combine so many separate issues into one thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "Assorted Suggestions". lol. It would have been appropriate to simply delete this rant. Marteau (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC) @Marteau: Call it 'Talk therapy'. A true "rant" has no constructive purpose. Truth4All's extended treatise could perhaps be interpreted as 'cyberbullying'. But Trump's a big boy; he can take it... ;) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

36th Prez-elect?

I recommend that we do not add 36th to President-elect of the United States, in the infobox. Though it's accurate, it will also confuse our readers, by making appear as though we're suggesting Trump will become the 36th President. Note: We didn't use 35th while Obama was President-elect. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's not historically significant that he is the 36th President-elect. The "-elect" designation is merely temporary or transitional. Edge3 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree also.- MrX 18:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

+1. Trivia clutter. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Question:

Please read WP:NOTFORUM — JFG talk 01:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Most anyone wants to know if Trump HAS the balls to order a Nuclear Strike against nations sooooo saturated with autism, schizofrenia and paranoia that launching against them would NOT GENERATE a loss? Or is he too fearfull of his own life, knowing defacto that all and every ´I´m the leader of a million autistic & schizofrenic´ water heads, would order his ´water heads´ to kill him? Does he? Or is he just another whimp of a bipolar whimp system afraid of ´virginia´ schizo autistics woof. Don´t bother, he is, like most any within the United States. Vote Putin, for next United Nations President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.92.225.43 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Question:

Please read WP:NOTFORUM — JFG talk 01:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Most anyone wants to know if Trump HAS the balls to order a Nuclear Strike against nations sooooo saturated with autism, schizofrenia and paranoia that launching against them would NOT GENERATE a loss? Or is he too fearfull of his own life, knowing defacto that all and every ´I´m the leader of a million autistic & schizofrenic´ water heads, would order his ´water heads´ to kill him? Does he? Or is he just another whimp of a bipolar whimp system afraid of ´virginia´ schizo autistics woof. Don´t bother, he is, like most any within the United States. Vote Putin, for next United Nations President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.92.225.43 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

American conventions

There is an inconsistency between placing the quotation mark before or after the period. As Donald Trump is the President-elect of the United States, I suggest we place quotation marks after periods and commas in this article per MOS:TIES. TranquilHope (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see MOS:LQ. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

LQ takes priority over TIES. Mind you, it is hard to understand why the MOS would do that. TFD (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

TFD is right. Extremely short quotes go inside the closing punctuation, and longer quotes go outside. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Or to be more precise: The punctuation goes inside the quote if the punctuation is PART of the quote. A full sentence: punctuation inside. A snippet: punctuation outside. --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving footnotes out of the lead

I don't know if an entire new RFC is necessary to merely move the footnotes out of the lead, but I'd be glad to start one if necessary. IMHO, either the lead should be fully footnoted, or not footnoted. To have four footnotes after one sentence, and no footnotes anywhere else in the lead, looks silly to me, and it's unlike any other lead I've ever seen. These four footnotes should of course go later in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The footnotes follow the most contentious sentence in the entire article. For that reason, I think they should remain and the rest of the lead should omit footnotes for readability. I would not oppose removing them from the contentious sentence if I knew that editors wouldn't simply remove the sentence or alter it to suit their personal POV. - MrX 16:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I seem to recall (can't find it right now) that the footnotes on that sentence were inserted at the recommendation of an admin who closed a discussion on the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. Sandstein commented that including the footnotes was part of the proposal, thus part of the consensus outcome.- MrX 16:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The footnotes were swept into a discussion of larger issues, and there was never any separate proposal to footnote one and only one sentence. But I'd be glad to start an RFC about that. The most controversial sentences in lots of leads exclude footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We already have an RFC about that sentence. Let's not start another one while that one is open. The footnotes issue can be dealt with after that RfC is resolved - and may not even be necessary depending on how that RfC is resolved. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Intro

Can we please keep it simple. Along with his others descriptions, he's President-elect of the United States. He will be sworn in as the 45th President. We don't need to go on about when he was projected elected (November 8) or elected (December 19), as that's too elaborative for the lead. Besides, this will all be changed to 45th President of the United States, on 20 January 2017. Keep it neat, like the Mike Pence intro. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

1RR volunteers needed

Due to 1RR, I am out of service for another 10 hours as to reverts of clearly bad edits (there is no 1RR exemption for reverting clearly bad edits, short of clear vandalism, clear BLP violation, etc.). Therefore volunteers are needed to spend their 1R's on at least two items.

1. An attempt was made to change the infobox image and add acaption. The image was reverted but the caption remains.

2. [11]

Both edits were against consensuses in the consensues list. It would be very helpful to have a 1RR exemption for reverting such edits, but that would likely require an act of ArbCom or something. If I'm being overly cautious here, the rules sorely need adjustment to better reflect practical reality. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done both. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. You violated the 1RR rule by doing both, and yet benefited the encyclopedia. My point is that we need to either strictly observe the rule, modify it as needed, or scrap it. The current situation is unacceptable. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome (I honestly don't see it as a 1RR violation, and even if it was, I believe this exists for a reason). JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

1. It clearly was a violation of 1RR as currently written. There is no exemption for that type of revert, full stop. 2. Your IAR rationale is that 1RR can be violated if it benefits the encyclopedia. The problem with that reasoning is that everybody thinks their edits benefit the encyclopedia, so it's the same as removing the 1RR rule completely. The goal is not to provide a defense at ANI but to avoid the need for ANI in the first place. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

If someone asked me one rule where IAR shouldn't be used, I'd probably say 1RR. Doubt it will cause you any problems. But, if you self-revert one of your reverts, I'll re-revert it. (Try saying that ten times quickly.) Objective3000 (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

According on of the edit notice, reverting changes to the infobox image is 1RR exempt per admin TomStar81 here.- MrX 21:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that 1RR doesn't apply to the infobox image. The caption is associated with the image, and is thus included in the 1RR exemption. Just my opinion. Edge3 (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

By my reading of the 1RR rule, two closely-linked edits can be considered a single revert, so the image and caption can be reverted together indeed. — JFG ^talk 00:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Arbitration Enforcement Admin Note - As the amended editnotice states: Reversions to reinstate the consensus-approved image in the article are not counted against the established 1RR sanction in this article...; therefore there was no 1RR violation made by the editor reinstating the image (contrary to Mandruss' assertion) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

MrX and Coffee are correct; 1RR does not - repeat not - apply to the infobox image; this was worded as an exemption specifically because there is a consensus based mandate to keep this image in the article. Therefore, with regards to the image, feel free to revert as many times as needed to keep the currently approved version in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@TomStar81:, (edit conflict) The only issue is that we can't make editors using mobile devices see the ARBCOM warning (as was the case in this last switch). Do you think a more strongly worded hidden comment, perhaps listing the potential for being blocked, would satisfy the fair warning requirement? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I could have reverted the caption. But I could not have reverted the birthplace without waiting 10 hours (and then spending my next 1R on that, thus rendering myself impotent for another 24 hours). My essential point stands. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Has there been a discussion held establishing a consensus on how the birthplace should be displayed? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: Yes, and that discussion is linked from the consensuses list item 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Any and all edits, or reverts to edits, that have been fully backed by an established firm consensus cannot be seen as any form of rule violation (1RR or otherwise). This is precisely what WP:IAR is for. Of course, it is highly recommended that you immediately inform an administrator (at WP:ANI - or even WP:AIV due to this page's visibility) so that the offending editor can be blocked ASAP (so as to prevent an edit war from ensuing). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: That is not in the list of exemptions at WP:3RRNO. If it's an unwritten rule, I submit that it should be written. If IAR is all you need, we could dispense with the exemptions list. All of those things are improvements to the encyclopedia, no? Anyway, no editor can be blocked for editing against a consensus unless it's shown that they were aware of the consensus. We have many "drive-bys" who were not involved in discussions and can't be expected to know about a consensuses list that exists only here and in a few other articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: The best place for a specific rule to be displayed regarding the proper editor conduct in this article, is in this article's listed Arbitration Remedies... and it is: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). It stands to reason that if the consensus has already been obtained that such a discussion would not need to take place again, so therefore the consensus version always stands until further discussion. This was fully hashed out during the lengthy discussions we had at ArbCom regarding my placing these remedies a few months back, and for all intents and purposes was fairly well accepted by the standing ArbCom. Furthermore, any active Arbitration Remedies supersede any normal courses of action for specifically heated or high-vis arenas. So, as long as you feel that your actions can stand up to any AE review, with the clear purpose of the improvement of the encyclopedia, then you should never feel the need to hesitate in doing the right thing. The administrators can then decide whether the "offending" editor needs guidance or more severe remedies at such a time, even if others feel it may have been a minor mishap it is still best to notify an admin so that we can keep track of and hopefully prevent any repeat violators. - Now as a further way of resolving this I'm also keen on the idea of that list of consensuses being formalized/split to its own subpage and protected, in which case I would gladly add such a link to the current editnotice. But, I'll leave that decision up to the more active editors here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: Pretty good idea, thanks! @Mandruss, MrX, Objective3000, TomStar81, and Edge3: et al, wouldn't it be beneficial to list the consensus FAQ in a separate subpage? We could transclude it at the top of the Talk page (expanded) and in the edit notice (collapsed). Hopefully that would raise awareness of the most frequent issues and save time for new editors and regulars alike. Trump is pushing the creative boundaries of Wikipedia: so much winning! — JFG ^talk 01:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected or full-protected? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I would suggest full protection, in the same manner as the editnotice itself is. Just to ensure that only administrators familiar with AE procedure can update it per established consensus and to ensure the intentions of the ArbCom rulings are followed. Anyone should feel free to create the subpage though, and just let an admin know when to lock it down and add it to the notice. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: That means effectively an uninvolved admin close for every consensus, except that a close statement would not necessarily be required. We would no longer be able to agree among ourselves that we have consensus. I don't necessarily oppose that but it would be an added degree of bureaucracy (and I'm not aware of any ArbCom rulings that have any bearing on how consensuses are decided). As it stands now, the list is itself subject to BRD and one asserted consensus has been contested resulting in an RfC now open. I don't disagree that the current setup could be a problem, but it hasn't been yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

While I feel that the absence of an explicit, written 1RR exemption for this invites conflict and edit warring (it is not unreasonable to assume that a list of seven exemptions is a complete and comprehensive list, that anything not listed there is not exempted), I will henceforth ignore 1RR for this type of revert and link to this thread in lieu of that exemption. We'll see how that goes. Again, my goal is not to have a defense at ANI, AE, or anywhere else, but to avoid having to defend my actions there. I think an explicit exemption would be respected by many editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm coming late to this party and I don't know how relevant this is, but a few months ago there were a couple of discussions at my talk page, where I was asking for clarification of the rules. I'm just passing along what others said in other contexts; I am still a learner in this area. Two possibly relevant points:

• Per this discussion: If you remove three unrelated things from an article in three different consecutive edits, that does NOT count as three reversions; it is one reversion. The rules say that "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions … counts as a revert." From what I see of this discussion, it sounds like User:JudgeRM did NOT violate the 1RR rule if he made a pair of reversions in consecutive edits. And User:Mandruss could have made several reversions, if done consecutively, without violating 1RR.
• Per this discussion, about the requirement to obtain consensus at the talk page before reinstating any edits that have been challenged via reversion: On the face of it, this sounds like it gives the advantage to a person who removes content: by removing it they make it "contentious," and a talk page discussion is required to reinstate it. But the discussion at my talk page said, not so. A removal is also an edit. If the edit was to remove longstanding material, and someone restores the material, that means that the REMOVAL was contentious, challenged by its restoration, so that consensus must be obtained on the talk page to REMOVE the longstanding material, and in the meantime it stays in the article. "The removal of longstanding content is the edit that can be challenged via reversion." "the wording carefully specifies "reinstating any edits that have been challenged" instead of "reinstating any additions that have been challenged" for this very reason." "The wording is meant to favor the status quo and stabilize the article." This looks to me like edits to restore consensus are legitimate challenges to an edit that went against consensus, and it is the edit against consensus that needs to be justified at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC) P.S. This is basically what User:Coffee said above: "It stands to reason that if the consensus has already been obtained that such a discussion would not need to take place again, so therefore the consensus version always stands until further discussion."

The elephant in the room is a policy that is so Rube-Goldberg-convoluted—so counter-intuitive—that a 10-year editor and admin is "still a learner in this area", and yet applies to every editor. Policies that are that hard to understand are bad policies.
WP:3RRNO still needs an item 8. It does not follow automatically from the consensus version always stands until further discussion that "reverts to consensus version are exempted from 1RR". That is not an inference that ordinary editors should be expected to make. I tend to take policy very literally and err on the side of caution, partly because my one block resulted from my failure to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps now you understand my similar frustration with the similarly frustrating Arbcom "Any US political article is subject to 1RR, but furthermore if someone opens an RfC on something, well that's it for pretty much 30 whole days" ruling... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: Above you wrote that "The only issue is that we can't make editors using mobile devices see the ARBCOM warning (as was the case in this last switch). Do you think a more strongly worded hidden comment, perhaps listing the potential for being blocked, would satisfy the fair warning requirement?" With regards to the mobile editing issue, that sounds like something that the foundation ought to be looking into since a lot of articles here do have edit notices covering editing. As for a strongly worded hidden message, the problem with that is that it would only be seen if someone was specifically editing the effected area, and even then they may not read to much into it since the note wouldn't show in the main space, just in the editing space. We had the same problem at the aircraft in pop culture article, the hidden notice was not terribly effective if editors went to tweak one small section as opposed to editing from the top of the page. That being said, we can try it and see if it helps, but I would not hold out much hope. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I added this as consensus #7.[12] While this is not optimal in my opinion (one could argue that this is not subject to consensus, so it has no place in the list of consensuses), it provides some visibility that would not exist otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to moving it out of the list and placing it as a NOTE: above. Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Only that many editors seem to ignore a talk page's prologue as inconsequential "fine print", as evident in the number who don't appear to be aware of the 1RR restriction. A NOTE above would serve to quickly resolve conflicts in this area, but the higher visibility of the thread would probably prevent more of them. I believe in a proactive approach, not a reactive one. (That said, a NOTE above would be an improvement over nothing but this discussion buried in the archives.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Or did you mean a NOTE above #1 but still in that thread? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I did mean a NOTE above #1 but still in that thread - below the section header, but either directly above or directly below the "Current consensuses:" list heading was my thought, and with sufficient style as to stand out. Sort of explanatory text for the list. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that. It would further increase visibility by making it the first thing read, usually, while eliminating my initial concern. I'll do that, subject to further comments. Objective3000 says below, I think I agree with adding it to the list, but it's unclear whether they prefer #7 to NOTE. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

My concern is that this doesn’t prevent a trip to AE if some editor wants to cause you trouble over something unrelated. It does provide a better defense. Which doesn’t mean that an editor might not still have to take time to deal with an AE complaint. I think I agree with adding it to the list – perhaps with a warning to be careful with anything that could be construed as a 1RR vio. Objective3000 (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't look, and just curious, does every new editor receive the complimetary and informative "discretionary sanctions" notice? Also, since I have not been involved in this type of situation before, could someone tell me why, and what benefit, having "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article "before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)".", instead of the normal WP:BRD? Otr500 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe the DS advice is issued only to editors whose editing suggests that they are not aware of the DS.
I'm guessing that we (they) didn't want to refer to an unofficial essay in an official rule. And that we (they) didn't wish to be connected to the perennial debate over whether to promote BRD to guideline status. Both are pure guesses. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI for the major editors here

The box on the right is the FAC toolbox, which the Military history Wikiproject has adopted for its A-class reviews. Among other things, this box contains a link to a script that checks the external links in any given Wikipedia article, and when used on the article article Donald Trump its shows that some of these links may not be working. Under the BLP protocol, information in the article can be removed if its sources are not up to par, so someone may want to look into this if they get a moment. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Net worth contradiction

The infobox lists DJT's net worth at $4.5B and uses a citation that says $3.7B. The consensus list at the top of this page says that the real-time net worth should not be used. I agree. However, the $3.7B number comes from a detailed Forbes article in September, not from their real-time estimates which are not updated in real-time for DJT as his holdings are generally private. [[13]]. Objective3000 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. The cited Forbes page lists both the "real time" net worth of $3.7 billion (apparently derived from their September estimate as you point out) and the annual 2016 billionaires' net worth of $4.5 billion, which is the one we are reporting until the 2017 yearly rankings are published. — JFG ^talk 22:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

New York City

The source code for the article currently states that there is a consensus for the birthplace in the infobox, but I could find no such consensus in the archives of this talk page. The closest I got to was this which does not seem to indicate consensus. So maybe I am looking in the wrong place? The current designation "Queens, New York City, New York, United States of America" is extraordinarily superfluous and unnecessary. I think a simple "New York City" is best. Colipon+(Talk) 04:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I've restored it to NYC. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Prior government experience

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been some tweaking recently about how to describe the fact that he is the first person elected president without ever having held public office or served in the military. Until recently it said just that: "He is also the only individual in U.S. history to be elected president without ever having held public office or served in the military." That's clear enough. But on the 21st it was changed to "without any prior experience in public service", with the rationale that this is the same wording as the 2016 election article. A few days later it was changed to "without any prior experience in military or other official public service," which was then changed again to "without any prior governmental experience." That's how it reads now. What do we think it should say? MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• My own preference is for the original wording: "without ever having held public office or served in the military". That makes it clear, since there have been presidents who never held public office but served in the military, and there have been presidents who held public office but did not serve in the military, but he is the first to have done neither. I don't like "prior governmental experience" - what does that mean? We have all had "governmental experience" in one form or another. (I taught for a few years in the public schools, I guess I have had governmental experience.) I also don't particularly like the generic "public service" because, again, nobody really knows what that means. (Does volunteering to clean up the beaches count? Hey, I have done public service!) Reliable Sources[14] are talking about two specific things here - holding public office and serving in the military. Let's not muddy it up. MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I just edited the article without first reading these comments. I figure "He is also the only individual in U.S. history to be elected President without prior military or governmental experience" is sufficient. I don't like the sentence structure of that earlier version. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that wording. --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

"We have all had 'governmental experience' in one form or another." What was Trump's?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Getting a drivers license? Filing for a construction permit? Being sued by the Justice Department? --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that almost all readers would understand "government experience" to mean "experience in government", but the latter phraseology would be fine with me; it covers experience in political office as well as experience in the military. Without "experience in the public sector" would be okay too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

And this reversion by Richi surely violates the usual WP:BRD process, does it not? Trump is unique in modern history as being a president with no prior military and/or government experience (presidents always have one or the other), so it is ridiculous that this should've been removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I think political office and military service can be rolled into one term, for purposes of the lead, in order to be concise and avoid undue weight. What that term is is something that we ought to discuss, and I have no preference at this point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Public service and military service both fall under government service, since the military is part of the government. IMO not having any prior government service would suffice and it is not loaded. 69.166.119.17 (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Current wording "elected President without prior governmental experience" is clear and concise, I don't see the need to explicitly distinguish political and military positions here, as both are government jobs. The linked article on prior experience of US presidents is very detailed. — JFG ^talk 09:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Literally, military service could be considered a subset of government service. However, the preponderance of people these days have a very negative view of government and very positive view of the military and separate the two. So, I think both need be included for completeness. Objective3000 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I give up on the batshit threading above, so I'm outdenting. Normal human beings understand there is a difference between military experience and regular government experience because the former usually involves putting your life in harm's way. In the context of the presidency, they are always considered to be separate. There is no single word than can be used to adequately cover both, and since we are talking about two words, we can dispense with the notion it would somehow be undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

They are definitely different things and both should be mentioned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• The current edit "without ever having held public office or served in the military" has already caused confusion per this edit. Naue7 (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• No, trying to conflate two different things into oversimplified wording does create confusion. Mentioning both leaves no confusion about what is meant. They should both be mentioned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Naue7: The edit you linked seems to just be one editor who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "or". Vrrajkum (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• I prefer the original phrasing "without ever having held public office or served in the military". It's perfectly clear; I dislike the current edit "He will also be the first president without prior military or other governmental employment" because although military service is technically government employment, the public generally views serving in the military and holding public office as two unrelated things. "Governmental employment" is also rather vague; it could mean something as mundane as working for the DMV, whereas "public office" clearly refers to elected office. Vrrajkum (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. A public office can also be an appointed office such as secretary of state or secretary of defense. 38.121.92.211 (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• I see that User:Anythingyouwant just changed it from "He is also the only individual in U.S. history to be elected president without ever having held public office or served in the military" to "He will also be the first president without prior military or other government employment." He changed it in spite of the invisible comment "NOTE: This sentence is being discussed at the talk page; please do not change it, but join in the discussion." His edit summary was "No big change here, just ten words shorter." Well, I for one think the change to "employment" was a "big change" and inappropriate. Nobody up to now has proposed the words "governmental employment", and that is not what the Reliable Sources are talking about. They are talking about elective office, not some vaguely defined "employment". He is the first president who has neither served in the military nor held elective office, per sources. I invite Anythingyouwant to self-revert and get consensus before making a change like this, especially to a sentence tagged as currently under discussion at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see it as controversial, and wouldn't you agree that the sentence has already been changed unilaterally after you installed the little note? Anyway, the word "employment" obviously includes any elective office, but I will modify that per your request.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Without judgement on the appropriateness of the proposed wording, I believe that "elected" is meant, not "elective". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC) I stand corrected. Between the Pacific and the Atlantic heading eastwards, "elective office" is apparently correct. The wondrous vagaries of "American" will never cease to amaze. My humble apologies. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It has been changed a dozen times during this discussion - that's why I added the note. I mainly objected to the word "employment", and you have now changed it to "governmental service"; OK, "service" has at least been part of the discussion here. I still prefer the more precise (and better sourced) "public office" or "elective office," but that is what discussions are for. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• I prefer the first phrasing "without ever having held public office or served in the military", as best conveying the RS intended message. I also think that phrasing has more WP:WEIGHT appearances in print than the terms "public service" and "governmental experience", and that those terms are actually things Trump could claim, so seem not the way to phrase it. Markbassett (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I like this edit from Anythingyouwant (probably because it is similar to the one I did 4 days ago), but how many more times is "This sentence is being discussed at the talk page; please do not change it, but join in the discussion" going to be ignored? Let the discussion play out, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

How's it similar? My trivial edit had nothing to do with the word "military", and was merely for conciseness.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Attempt to summarize

This discussion has been going on for five days. There have been lots of tweaks about the exact wording - "public service", "public office," "governmental experience", "government employment" - but I think we can at least decide this: should we specify "military" experience separately, or use "government" alone to include military service? Reviewing the discussion I see that six people want to mention "military" separately, and three say that "government" alone is enough. Can we conclude that there is consensus to specify "military" separately from "government"? (In addition I note that Reliable Sources mostly do.[15] Sources point out that almost all previous presidents had held previous elective office; of the five who didn't, two had held cabinet positions and three were military commanders.) If we can agree on this, that leaves only the exact wording of the other part of the sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That summary seems consistent with the current wording: "At age 70, Trump will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first without prior military or other governmental service." So shall we leave it and move on?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That would work for me, although I preferred the original version that listed "government service" before "military" - because more than 40 presidents had prior government service, and only three had military service only. Let's give others a chance to comment. --MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that government service should come first. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, how about this: "At age 70, Trump will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first without prior civilian or military governmental service."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. Was the original wording "without ever having held public office or served in the military" so awful? It is precise, and it is what Reliable Sources say. Is it really necessary to muddy the water in order to save a few words? --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

How about:

The first elected without prior governmental or military experience, Trump will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency.

It's concise and contains everything everyone seems to want. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I oppose any version that suggests wrongly that military service is not governmental. And I'm against moving the prior service stuff before the age and wealth, given that the latter is more publicized. And I'm against a huge extended wiki link for all of this, as if neon signs were sadly unavailable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We can avoid that problem by eliminating the vague word "governmental" and saying "held public office" instead. I do agree that the sentence structure of Scjessey's proposal may be a little hard to parse. How about "Trump will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency. He will also be the first who never held previous public office nor served in the military. did not previously hold public office or serve in the military." --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That would be okay if you put the wlink over "previously hold". Public office includes military officers, but your language is okay (and not redundant) because it excludes enlisted service. I suggest using one sentence instead of two (removing "He will also be"). I think the language I previously suggested today is less convoluted, but whatever. Heaven forbid we should use a word like "government" that has a slightly inferior reputation to the word "public" (note that your summary above asked "Can we conclude that there is consensus to specify 'military' separately from 'government'?" I thought so, but now we're asked to completely exclude "government").Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I prefer "public office" because it includes elective office and appointive office (like the cabinet) but excludes things like being a teacher or a policeman or working for the DMV. Those are "government" positions but they are not "holding public office", which is what all but three previous presidents have done. (I don't think many people would describe a military officer as "holding public office" - that would be a real stretch.) But this wording is one of the things still subject to discussion, as I indicated at the start of this section. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do you want to include one weekend per month in the National Guard, but not a lifetime career as a state policeman? Anyway, "public office" typically does include policemen and the like (that's why they're called "officer"). Seriously, why not just say he's the first who never before served in government? Everyone knows that includes the military. But if we're going to get specific about the military, I don't see why we need to completely excise the word "government" when referring to civilian positions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I served in the military. I would never claim that I served in government without a clear explanation of what I mean by that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I served in the military too, and it was a government job. Anyway, if we want to be explicit about it, the standard language is that he never had a "military" or "civilian" job in the public sector/government. I've already described at least four versions of this that I can agree to, including ones that explicitly say "military". Are you okay with them too, User:Mandruss?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not see a problem with "without ever having held public office or served in the military", as the military needs to be seperate. However, "IF" we are going to nit-pick then "Public office" would exclude police officers ("public officers") in some states and the judicial branch in others. New Hampshire and North Carolina exclude legislators from the definition of "public official". Texas defines "appointed officer", "elected officer," "state employee," and "state officer" separately.

There is clearly an understandable difference between a police officer and a military soldier or officer, and a "civilian". Part of the media attention, besides the fact that he has never held any "government office", elected or appointed, is that Trump has no prior military service. I am sure reaching captain in a military academy will not count. I submit that, "... and the first without prior military or governmental service.", would be as close (and as short) as we can get. Otr500 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I also agree to the current version as of this post, even though I think the word "military" is superfluous, but can live with it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rejiggering the Edit Notice

@Mandruss, JudgeRM, Objective3000, MrX, Edge3, JFG, Coffee, Bastun, and Ryk72: In light of our previous discussion at the 1RR heading here and given the material in the above above section, I think we are going to need a bigger box for all the consensus related material in the article. Would anyone object if we swapped out the box I currently have in the editnotice space for the image with the one below? It has been adopted to reflect all relevant consensus points as of December 2016, and can be tweak by the admin corps as needed to reflect changing consensus in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No objection, but I think it must absolutely include the consensus for 7. Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false. (link) That's far more important than some of the others on this list. - MrX 12:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

And it will when the consensus for #7 is formalized. I'll add it myself if I have to, although if we adopt the template we can add a note in this section (well technically the above section) to the effect that consensus - once established - should be added to the template, or if it is already present, updated in the template. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but consensus is already formalized. There is a standing consensus for the current wording. If it changes (which seems unlikely at this point), then the edit notice can be changed. - MrX 14:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No objection. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I just checked the page using mobile, and this section does not jump out at you. It is not visible as a notice at all. It is merely a heading in the table of contents. You have to click on it to read it. Maybe if we put it at the top of the page without a section heading, like the lede in an article? --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to this. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It wouldn't make a difference. Like I noted below, this is more a foundation issue since the mobile editing version is vastly different to the version on gets on a desktop/laptop/tablet(?). The best we can do is add something in the header that makes it look important and hope for the best...unless the foundation figures out a way to make the edit notices and such pop out at the mobile community. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@TomStar81, JudgeRM, Objective3000, MrX, Edge3, JFG, Coffee, Bastun, Ryk72, and Objective3000:
1. Who would have technical control of this? What would be required to get something added, removed, or modified? 2. The list is young and I expect it to grow a lot. Have we considered what it would look like with 30 items? 3. I submit that people are more likely to take the time to review all of it in its current form, than when they have an edit on their mind (those who look at the talk page at all, that is). 4. Re MelanieN's suggestion, I think there is high value in something that you can link directly to, from editsums or other threads. The only way to do that is with a section.
All things considered, I would strongly prefer a big fixed notice about this consensuses list, with a link to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The longer the notice, the more likely it will be ignored. A big bold judicious phrase linked to the appropriate talk page section would be much more efficient in mitigating innocent ignorance of consensus. I would suggest this: Please review established consensus wording before editing this article, especially the lead section. And we could standardize the practice of adding hidden comments in relevant places, all pointing to this same section. — JFG ^talk 20:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Technical control would be with the community; once consensus is established, an admin could update the template with the relevant links as needed. Adding or removing to this specific template would require proof of a consensus building discussion on the issue at hand. If this list gets long, we can add coding to collapse the consensus discussion part, leaving only the notice and a link to the talk page for full details. And we can definitely link to this section from the template, that's probably the easiest thing to tweak. Remember, the reason I put this here instead of simply adding it was to get feedback on the template, so all objections, questions, and concerns are welcome. If we decide to move forward with the newer template then I want us to do so knowing we hammered out the relevant details as a group, and if we decide against it I want us to decide against it as a group. Like it says on my userpage, "administrators be thou for the contributors"; if the contributors don't like the proposal, then we change it or scrap it. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it may be better to keep the list short in the edit notice and limit it to the most important content. The other items could be listed in a sticky at the top of the talk page. Things like whether just the city, or the city, state and country should be listed in the infobox are fairly trivial in comparison with wording of contentious material in the lead.- MrX 22:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding or removing to this specific template would require proof of a consensus building discussion - This is the point I made in the 1RR discussion. Said "proof" is the discussion itself, so an uninvolved admin would have to be found to do all of a formal close except the close statement. My concern is that this would discourage the inclusion of relatively minor items like #2, which are needed in the list to prevent ongoing slow-burn edit warring. My feeling is that editors of the article should manage the list on their own, using standard BRD, until there is a demonstrated need for admin involvement. And given the perpetual backlog at WP:ANRFC, do we really need to add to this workload?
MrX, we are not space-constrained, so inclusion of the minor stuff has no effect on inclusion of the major stuff; it's not a binary choice. The item you speak of was omitted only because there was another RfC in progress; that was only a rough agreement between 2 or 3 editors (in user talk?), and there is no reason we can't agree to add it now. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion there won't be many editors reviewing the list first, no matter what we do. The main benefit will be that, in most cases, only the one revert will be needed, provided it links to the list and provides the item number. I expect very little edit warring around these items, and in those few cases there will be a clear case for a discretionary sanction against the editor ignoring the consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I realize that we're not space constrained. My only concern is that if it's too extensive, it may be ignored. I would be much more comfortable is we added the consensus I mentioned above. It should be obvious by now that a new consensus is unlikely.The mobile browser issue that MelanieN mentioned should be addressed too, probably at WP:VPT or meta since it seems to be a technical issue. Of course it should not stop us from implementing the changes to the edit notice.- MrX 23:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: - Well add it per BRD and see how it flies. Demonstrate how this can work without admin involvement. If you're reverted, it won't be by me. There is no question that such an entry would already exist if the list had existed in September. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Only admins or template editors can edit edit notices.- MrX 15:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done – I have replaced the edit notice about Trump's portrait with a more generic pointer to this section. Let's see how it goes. — JFG ^talk 16:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: Thanks, that's a good move in my opinion.
"Changes to established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight and such reverts are not limited by WP:1RR restrictions."
This sentence, which was already present, is poorly worded on two counts.
1. The revert is not undoing a "change to established consensus"; there is no change to consensus; the sentence confuses the consensus and the content resulting from the consensus, as if the word "consensus" applies to both; it does not.
2. "without prior discussion" implies that you can edit against consensus if you discuss it first. To the contrary, you not only have to discuss it but you have to reach a new consensus.
These are not significant problems for those who already understand how things work, but they are not the target audience. My suggestion would be: "Edits against established consensus can be reverted on sight and such reverts are not limited by WP:1RR restrictions." ―Mandruss ☎ 17:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thanks for your suggestions. It's true that "Changes to established consensus" does not convey the right message. If our target audience are inexperienced editors, I would just say "Changes against established consensus", avoiding the jargon term "Edits". Your second point is noted but I don't find it confusing and I think we should keep the "without prior discussion" part, otherwise people may think that there is no way to change consensus ever, and that would go against WP core principles. I would simply add a link to the talk page from the "discussion" word, as a clear call to action. — JFG ^talk 18:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking primarily of the editor who has been around long enough to know what the word "edit" means and that consensus can change—like, say, a month or two. The purpose of the edit notice is not to teach Editing 101 but to explain how editing this article differs from editing most others. Maybe my proposed wording bears some further improvement, but the current language is simply poor writing and unclear communication. I'll await other comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Meanwhile I have clarified the part we agree on. — JFG ^talk 18:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The word "currently" in the second sentence is misspelled.

He is cuurently President-elect but is scheduled to take office as the 45th President on January 20, 2017.

Halqery (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Halqery

Fixed now! κατάσταση 04:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed the word, as it was redundant. AFAIK, there's only one US President-elect at a time. GoodDay (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Trump Family Tree.png

This file or media is currently the subject of a Deletion discussion at Wikimedia Commons.

If you have an interest in this media, or have information which could prevent its deletion, please participate in the discussion, or contact someone from Commons as soon as possible. (t) Josve05a (c) 10:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

this part is too loaded

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

and the first without prior military or other governmental service.

Government service include teacher, police officer, clerk, mail deliverer, midwife, firefighter, paramedic, senator, representative, governor, mayor, alderman, land commissioner, secretary of state, secretary of defense, general in the army, private in the army, submariner, you name it.

There is no need to split military from other government service. IMO just "and the first without prior governmental service" is sufficient.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see the existing discussion above at "Prior government experience". --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This is journalese. All presidents had been elected to government office before becoming president except: Taft and Hoover were cabinet secretaries, Grant was Commanding General of the United States Army and Eisenhower was Chief of Staff of the United States Army. That's not just any government or military employment. Had Trump served in the Peace Corps or not been medically unfit for the draft, his background would still have distinguished him from the others. TFD (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think military should be split from the rest of government. If he worked as a private in the army or worked as a teacher in a school, he would have done governmental service. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2016

My request is to add the artist in which Trump used as his entrance song in his presidential campaign Who is Daniel Robinson The song being Darkness Rises. You can easily google it or if you want I can send you all the links. He has used it many times, and it has gotten media attention, We think it fair to add this to Trump's page or add this artist to Wikipedia. The song Darkness Rises was Trumps main choice for his entrance in most of his campaigns rallies. Djrrecords (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll let somebody else handle this, but note possible COI implications in the username. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Apparently this was used as one of Donald Trump's songs, but the only confirmation I can find is at the "Trump Channel"[trumpchannel.xyz/index.php?q=the%20darkness%20rises%20music] and a few tweets. No independent reliable media sources seem to have taken note of it, and Daniel Robinson himself does not seem ready for an article here, per WP:BAND. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

MSNBC/Salon/TheNation person named Joan Walsh re-tweeted the factoid,[16] but from their personal username rather than from their corporate handle methinks. Interestingly, if this is the French-language branch of Slate.com, then it looks like Bernie Sanders also used the same 'Darkness Rises' music at one of his rallies.[17] As for the rest of Trump's discography, there *are* definitely plenty of sources about Trump's music selections at rallies and for the repub national convention and such, plus feuds with various musicians over performance-rights. (One music critic mentioned a noteworthy omission: "I commend the Trump team for sparing us the obvious: Pink Floyd’s The Wall.") See subsection, Donald Trump campaign rallies#Music. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

2601:C2:4003:4306:B854:E9BD:C79D:BCF (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

More substantial wall

I disagree with this edit because it is unintentionally misleading. It suggests (at least to some readers) that there is not already any wall of any sort along the southern border of the U.S. The main text of this BLP uses the language "more substantial" wall, and I don't think two words in the lead about this are two too many. Trump's proposal is to build a big wall, instead of the current small wall, not instead of nothing at all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources reporting that Trump says he wants to build a "more substantial" wall? Or where Trump even acknowledges that some parts of the border already have a fence or wall? (BTW re "instead of the current small wall": if you are under the impression that there is already a wall along the entire southern border, you are mistaken.) We need to report what he said, not what we think he meant to say. And what he said, repeatedly, is that he intends to "build a wall" - a "big, beautiful wall". His call-and-response at every rally: "What are we going to build?" "A wall!" "Who is going to pay for it?" "Mexico!" Not a "bigger wall" or a "better wall" or a "more substantial wall", just "a wall". He gives the impression that he thinks, or wants his listeners to think, that the wall will be something brand new, not just an expansion of what is there now, and IMO we misreport his platform if we impose our own interpretation. I didn't notice the "more substantial" in the main text and I will take a look to see if it is sourced. --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly right. There are only relatively small portions of the border that have any type of wall at all.- MrX 16:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the section in the article's text: it lists three references. None of the references says or implies "more substantial". I will remove those two words when I can (can't right now per DS). --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The BLP says:

“ Trump vows to build a more substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border to keep out illegal immigrants, a wall which Trump promises Mexico will pay for. ”

References

The last of those three references makes abundantly clear that there is already a wall along parts of the southern border.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Vice news is not a reliable source as far as I know, and you seem to be reading only the headline anyway. Further into the article is says " But the fence abruptly ends in some places, leaving vast open stretches. In the most absurd cases, 30-foot sections of fence are surrounded on both sides by miles of wide open space." - MrX 17:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you think Vice News is reliable? In any event, both you and Melanie are mistaken if you think Trump is proposing a wall along the entire southern border. Even if he were, it would still be misleading to imply that there is no wall presently along any part of the southern border, which is what our lead is now implying.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course there are walls and fences along parts of the southern border. Everybody knows that. Our lead doesn't in any way imply there aren't. (And you, in your initial paragraph here, clearly implied that you thought there was already "a wall" - not "some walls" or "a series of walls" but "the current small wall" - along the southern border. I'm glad we agree there is currently not "a wall," but some walls and fences primarily in populated areas, leaving the vast majority of the border unfenced.) Trump's proposal was to built "a wall" - not "to strengthen the existing walls", not to "expand our system of walls" - but to build "a wall". All of the commenters on his proposal (estimating the cost, describing its feasibility, etc.) assumed that he meant a wall along pretty much the entire southern border.[18][19][20] That's what he has said, repeatedly. A new wall, 1000 miles long (with natural barriers taking care of the rest) and 50 feet high. There is nothing in any of the three sources, express or implied, to support our describing his proposal as a "more substantial" wall. More substantial than what? He hasn't even acknowledged the existence of anything current. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Vice.com seems to feature sensationalistic reporting and headlines; does not seem to be frequently cited by others; seems to have an open submission policy; and I can find no evidence that they have a reputation for fact checking. Nothing in the lead implies that portions of the border don't already have a wall, fence, or natural barrier.- MrX 17:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no quibble with the accuracy of the Vice report. It makes clear that some portions of the border have an existing wall or fence, and vast stretches do not. It does not in any way support a suggestion that Trump is calling for a "more substantial" wall. As I said with my revert: that is putting words in his mouth - words he has never said. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, you are mistaken. Trump has taken the position that, "Of the 2,000, we don’t need 2,000, we need 1,000 because we have natural barriers". Even where there's a natural barrier, he said on 60 Minutes that fencing would suffice in some places instead of a wall.[https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-wall-mexican-border-fence-segments/?client=safari]. Maybe if we can agree about what he's said, then we can get consensus on the lead language.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just modifying my comment above to say 1000 miles long and 50 feet high. That's still a new wall. Not a "more substantial" wall than... what? He has never said. He has never uttered those words. And we should not put them in his mouth. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think we'd be putting words in his mouth; no one suggested putting "substantial" in quotes or even attributing that word to him without quotes. The point is that he is proposing to expand what's already at the border, and already approved for the border, rather than proposing to build everything from scratch. Surely there must be an acceptable way to indicate in the lead the former rather than the latter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that he never says "I'm going to expand" or "I'm going to add to" or anything like this. He says "I am going to BUILD a wall." Period. And the wall he describes - concrete and 50 feet high - is completely different from anything currently in place. It IS, in fact, starting from scratch. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, he has actually been much more nuanced than merely saying "I am going to build a wall" (e.g., as I explained above, he allows for some fencing, and some natural barriers too). In any event, I think you're missing the point. There are already some walls, and some fences, and some natural barriers down there, and still more have already been approved by Congress. So he's not proposing to build a barrier along a border that currently has no barriers, which is what the lead currently implies. Do you want the lead to suggest that he's proposing to install the first-ever physical barrier between the two countries? Because that's what you seem to be advocating, intentionally or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• "I will build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words."
• "I'm building a wall, OK? I'm building a wall. I am going to do very well with the Hispanics, the Mexicans."
• "It’s going to be a big, fat, beautiful wall!"
• "A nation WITHOUT BORDERS is not a nation at all. We must have a wall. The rule of law matters."

Yep. That's real nuanced.- MrX 21:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall having asserted that every single sentence Trump's ever uttered on the subject has been nuanced.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We are talking in circles. I don't see anything in the lede sentence that implies there is nothing there now. Trump himself says, over and over and over, that he is going to build a wall, we must have a wall, we can't have a nation without borders (which he seems to imply is the current situation?). Even when he modifies the proposal a little bit in calmer settings - only 1000 miles of it will be wall, and part of it could be fence instead of wall - he still refers to it as his wall. He still leads the chanting of "build the wall" at rallies. He has NEVER suggested that it will be an addition or expansion of what is there now. Presumably (one hopes) he does know that there is a partial wall/fence along the border now, but he clearly thinks it is nothing that can be compared to his big fat beautiful wall. Anyhow, the bottom line is sourcing. I doubt if we can find a single reliable source that says he is really talking about expanding or "making more substantial" the existing border barriers. If he doesn't say it, and reliable sources don't say it, then we can't say it. Basically this is Original Research on your part. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You say, "I don't see anything in the lede sentence that implies there is nothing there now." Many readers, especially foreign ones, will not agree with you. How painful would it be for us to extremely briefly indicate that there is something there now?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

If we don't have any Reliable Sources pointing this out in connection with Trump's plan to build a wall - and if Trump himself has not pointed it out - it would still be WP:Original research. Or, if you prefer, WP:Synthesis. OR and synthesis are not only painful - they are not allowed. --MelanieN (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the BLP like this. Please let me know what you think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think it's unnecessary, but if it solves the problem you see with the sentence, I can accept it. It does seem like a fair representation of what he is saying. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant I edited the sentence to say building an extension of the wall along the U.S.–Mexico border because it is clear that Congress has already approved the "wall" that is already in place. The wall that Trump wants to build was already started under George W. Bush. Trump and his surrogates (Rudy Giuliani for example See here) have made it clear that Trump will be merely picking up on the work that Bush did and was stopped when Obama took office. The following Wikipedia article acknowledges that there is a series of walls, fences, and natural objects that make up the border right now and that 580 miles of barriers are in place. Congress has already voted on and approved and Bush signed into law the authorization to do what Trump has campaigned for. See: Mexico–United States barrier. I understand where you were going with "new wall" but that is not quite accurate. Trump and Giuliani have made it clear that they mean to fill in the gaps in the current system and continue the work already begun under Bush and since that Congressional approval is already in place then an Executive Order is all that is needed to get started.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Slacker, thanks for wanting to improve the article but I completely disagree with this, and I think Trump would strongly disagree as well. He is not planning to fill in the gaps because he would not accept any part of what is existing to be part of his "big, beautiful" 50 foot tall wall. "New" he would probably accept, but he makes it very clear that he thinks what we have now is not working and needs to be replaced - not just extended. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with your edit, but you can see above that other people had a problem with that. I don't really understand why. In any event, both your edit and mine have now been reverted without discussion by User:PeterTheFourth, so now the lead once again gives the false impression that Trump's proposal will install a wall at a border that now has no wall.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I object to the insertion of "a bigger and longer [wall]" to the lead and request that it be removed until there is actually consensus for adding such an unnecessary (and WP:OR) qualifier to the simple, factual statement that Trump said he wants to build a wall. These repeated attempts at interpreting his words to make his grandiose, over-the-top campaign promises suddenly seem reasonable violate WP:NPOV. - MrX 20:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If we just say a "wall" without any adjectives, then it sounds like there is presently no wall at the border. Is that false implication desirable? Would that be because we want to portray the project as being as unprecedented and unreasonable as possible?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Say what he said. If he was unclear, don't fix it. Use quotation marks if necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

According to reliable sources, he says that he wants a bigger and longer wall, that we don’t need 2,000 miles because 1,000 is natural barriers, and that fencing would suffice in some places instead of a wall. What the lead says now is a proper summary that is not misleading.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. The best language here is "new wall", which MelanieN already conceded is clear & acceptable. ("New wall" satisfies your need to not imply there is not already a wall of sorts at the border. And your "bigger and longer wall" is deficient and incorrect, because, Trump has made clear the wall he plans to build addresses countering tunnels, and if the new wall were simply bigger & longer as you like to state, it wouldn't do that. [A "new" wall leaves open "different kind of wall", and that indeed is what is the case. And we don't have to be more specific.]) IHTS (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think "bigger" can include a bigger underground portion to counter tunnels. But I would also be happy with just saying "new wall".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Bigger" connotes "taller" (and/or "wider"), not "deeper" (and also not "electronically enhanced"). IHTS (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Blame that on the President elect. It was he who whipped up his supporters into thinking that they were going to be getting a big, fat, beautiful wall, the implication being that the hodgepodge that exists now would be replaced with something rivaling the Great wall of China. It is intellectually dishonest to use equivocation in the lead of this article as a means of helping Mr. Trump walk back those promises. I hope to God that we're not going to have four years of having to defend against this type of newspeak as it tries to make it's way into the encyclopedia.- MrX 21:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

8Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. I don't fully see the point of your comment. Trump commented on the wall over and over again, yes. I agree with that point. But since he did comment constantly and consistently on the wall then there is much more nuance to his position than you seem to be willing to admit. He did talk about it a lot and during those other conversations and off hand comments he did hem and haw back and forth on size, cost, style, and who is going to pay for it. It seems that your main point is that he wants a "big, fat, beautiful wall" and that's all he said. Well, unfortunately your comment cuts against itself. He did argue for a "big, fat, beautiful wall" but also argued for cost effectiveness, fences, using natural objects, and made those other less over-the-top comments all of the time on the campaign trail. So, in sum, he did argue for a big wall and he did talk a lot about it, but during those months and months of discussing he DID comment on alternatives and he did talk about extending the wall (and fences) that are already there. It would be nice if Trump wrapped it all up in the phrase that you seem to not care for (i.e., "big, fat, beautiful wall") but he didn't and the lede paragraph needs to show the reader that Trump does acknowledge the current wall and the current federal law that supports the fact that he has stated that he will start work on the wall the moment he takes office. This is not newspeak. You are incorrect. It is called factual. Making the claim that he just wants a big wall is inaccurate.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think "new wall" is the best compromise we can get. At least it correctly suggests that there's already some kind of wall, instead of suggesting that Trump would build the first wall ever put at the border.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree. (And "new wall" easily implies new features. [As does "new car", likely having new features the old one didn't have.]) IHTS (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

SlackerDelphi, Trump said a lot of things, often contradictory, sometimes nonsensical, and many times downright false. Obviously, his every word cannot fit into the lead, so we have to summarize the significant points. Sources have overwhelmingly focused on the big ideas he used to promote his candidacy, one of which was building a wall. - MrX 22:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

MrX, I agree with you that not everything can fit into the lede and I'm not calling for that. So that is a red herring. All I'm saying is that he has stated that it should be a wall and that wall might be fence and might be electronic monitoring, etc. All of these things were outlined in campaign stops and on 60 Minutes with Lesley Stahl. It is just is not as simple as you would like to make it. And yes Trump can be contradictory, nonsensical and false in his statements--just like his critics.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

SlackerDelphi, "he did talk about extending the wall (and fences)". I don't think he ever said that. Or even implied it. (He talked about *constructing* a new wall, including fences where appropriate. He never said or implied *entending*, which would make use of existing wall/fence structures.) IHTS (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, as far as I can tell you have expressed a personal opinion without the benefit of one single reference to a reliable source to support your opinion. All you have offered to support your opinion is: "I don't think he ever said that". Unfortunately that is not a reliable source. Please review the Lesley Stahl interview on 60 Minutes, the many conversations with Guiliani and pull up Trump's many, many speeches on YouTube and you will see that made many contradictory statements on what he wants to do with the Southern border. They only consistent and constant reframe was stopping illegal immigration over the border. His critics have focused on (to paraphrase MrX) "the big wall" while he focused on illegal immigration. There is a true difference.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

You are the one contending he talked about "extending the wall (and fences)", so, *you* are the one with burden to show that with a ref to RS to support saying that, not the other way around. (And you didn't. Just a general finger point to a bunny trail that will not get there.) If this is the level of your arguments on this page, you're wasting my time. IHTS (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, I did point you to the references. I reviewed the references in the response I just wrote (60 Minutes interview, Guiliani comments, YouTube speeches, etc. all have been mentioned and links provided). Also, check out: "Yes, Trump will build his border wall. Most of it is already built." Washington Post, November 21, 2016. See also: "DONALD TRUMP: MEXICO BORDER WALL NOW ‘FENCE EXTENSION,’ ORIGINAL PLAN ‘NOT REALISTIC’", THE INQUISITR NEWS, November 12, 2016. Please note in the interview he uses the word "extension". All you have provided is your incorrect opinion that he did not say "extension". Just saying something did not have does not have make it not true. You need reliable sources and your own personal opinion does not ever count as a reliable source. I agree that you are wasting my time by refusing to read the references given.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

You're amazing. (I read your first offer of RS, the Washington Post article, every word of it. And there is nothing there at all to support your contention--nothing. It has lots of conjecture and opinion, but nothing re what Trump said, to your point we're talking about.) How about stop wasting my time!! p.s. I never contended Trump has never used the word "extension" (that word, btw, doesn't even appear in that article), I've questioned that he has ever stated/said/contended what you are saying he has stated/said/contended. Get a grip. IHTS (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, I am pretty amazing. You seem to be jumping up and down, not me. I am not the one that needs to get a grip. You just proved that you don't read anything. The word "extension" is used in the article. Yes, you questioned something, but it was a question not based upon any facts, just your opinion, which of course is not a reliable source. My point that Trump made many different claims about the wall and the fence and extending what has already been started and nothing you have stated refutes that fact. Also, I am responding to your comments even though you haven't provide one reliable source to support your contention. Please provide a reliable source. If this discussion is a waste of your time then why are you responding? Am I making you respond? No. Maybe the Russians are making you response. Or maybe it is the vast right wing conspiracy.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I was clearly referring to the Wash Post article you named, "Yes, Trump will build his border wall. Most of it is already built." Washington Post, November 21, 2016. The word "extension" appears nowhere in that article. (You can't read? Are incompetent? Or just dishonest? What?) IHTS (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso are you incompetent? Are you dishonest? The word appears: "DONALD TRUMP: MEXICO BORDER WALL NOW ‘FENCE EXTENSION,’ ORIGINAL PLAN ‘NOT REALISTIC’", THE INQUISITR NEWS, November 12, 2016.----SlackerDelphi (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I made clear (twice!) that I read/was referring to the Washington Post article. (So you don't read what others write, or discuss fairly, is that it!?) IHTS (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Slacker, please take a look at this discussion. Wikipedia works by consensus. You have tried, over and over, to persuade people that the lede (which is supposed to be a very basic summary of the points in the article) should focus, not on his constantly repeated theme and catchphrase "build a wall", but rather on the occasional low-profile modifications and walk backs by him or his surrogates. Multiple people have disagreed and you have not convinced anyone. There comes a time to let it go. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Build a wall" is an iconic phrase of Trump's, is his direct promise, and would appropriately be included in the encyclopedia without us tacking on an interpretation. Trump obviously plays fast and loose with his terminology and although it would be swell if Trump would be more specific in this and other stated goals it is not ours to do it for him. Marteau (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)