Wikipedia

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 44

< Talk:Donald Trump
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Mandruss in topic No longer Incumbent
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

Archive talk page please!

Latest comment: 7 years ago31 comments11 people in discussion
Consensus to keep bot archive at 7 days and allow manual archiving of formally closed threads after 24 hours. — JFG talk 15:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

Can we please archive some of this page.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

7-day automatic archiving is in effect and seems to be working fairly well. 29 threads is not excessive. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It could benefit from a faster pace. Threads go stale quickly. This page is difficult to navigate with the old business hanging on even for a week. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Should we change it to something like 4 days? MB298 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps five days as that is a work week? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. MB298 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
No please. Very few pages deserve faster-than-7-days-old archiving, and many threads here need to stay that long to receive appropriate attention. Also, some irrelevant threads get hatted to ease navigation. The talk page is currently very long because of a poorly-worded RfC with 6+ options to choose from, attracting walls of text filling up about half of the talk page size. This fact alone would push me to nuke the sentence completely but we are unlikely to reach a consensus on it soon. Keep the archive timing unchanged, and keep your comments short!   — JFG talk 21:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
For comparison, it was 93 threads on 15 November. I think we're ok with 29, even 39 if it comes to that. Of course we can manually archive selected threads, provided we select very conservatively. Threads that have been collapsed for days without objection can go (but don't archive collapsed level 3 sections where the parent section is not collapsed). One of these days I'll get around to getting set up for that one-click archiver thingy. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Five days sounds about right. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Miller:, @MB298:, and @Emir of Wikipedia:, I changed it to 5 days. Hopefully that will keep it from being too long to navigate properly. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I reverted you. There is no consensus for that change, and the arguments against change are a bit more thorough than "work week" and "seems reasonable", wouldn't you say? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a simple request and I don't see why you are arguing against something like this. It makes no sense. But if you insist, we can do an RfC. The archiving is a problem. It's difficult to navigate this huge page. In my opinion, 4 days would be better, but 5 is a good compromise. I'm going to change it back. If it gets reverted again, I'll start an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: I and JFG are arguing against it for the reasons we gave above. So I don't see why you don't see why we are arguing against it. You don't get to decide which opposition arguments are legitimate. Now you are simply being disruptive, and starting an RfC over an archive age will be seen as further disruption. The proper course is to leave the status quo pending a consensus to change it, and no decision has to be made today. But I am not going to add to your disruption by reverting you again. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Mandruss, archiving gets speeded up when the talk page is too cumbersome to navigate. We've got bits on here that should be long gone but they are hanging on waiting for that 7 days. Neither of you have presented a solid reason for keeping it hanging on like this. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: I say again: you don't get to decide which opposition arguments are legitimate. I encourage you to self-revert and let this discussion play out. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Your argument sounds like other stuff. Archiving a talk page is unique to the needs of the talk page. It's not a question of deciding on which arguments prevail, it's a question of the needs of the talk page. It's hanging on too long and getting too long. There are closed discussions that could have gone off, but for the 7 day and I believe it's a 42 thread count. That needs to change. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: Again, you're self-appointing as involved closer of this discussion, and we just don't do that. JFG and I have made cogent arguments that less than 7 days is too little and that 29 threads is not excessive. Once again, you don't get to say, "your arguments don't make sense to me, so I'm dismissing them and declaring a consensus." That's fundamental. Please self-revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I've taken it back to 7 days. There is no visible need for reduction. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
What's the consensus people? We decide by what everyone can live with.
  • Oppose - As long as the number of threads is manageable, there is no need for more aggressive bot archiving. We were at 98 threads on 16 November, and the current number is certainly not high for the BLP of the incoming president of the United States. I have manually archived four threads that had been collapsed for several days without objection. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps we should have an RfC to figure out how many days the archiver should be set to?</sarcasm> For what it's worth, I think 7 days is a short as it should be, but I am totally in favor of manually archiving closed discussions 24 hours after they've been concluded. This is a highly trafficked talk page that is much longer than what is typical, and it gets quite unwieldy sometimes. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    I oppose that. That should be at least 72 hours to allow time for challenges to a close. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    I suppose I oppose your oppose and propose we close! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep at 7 days. There are some people, active editors, who are only able to edit Wikipedia once a week (typically but not always on weekends). Active editors should not be excluded from discussions here, which already tend to be dominated by people who are here for hours every day. With that said, I would not oppose allowing one-click archiving of discussions which have been actually closed or hatted. --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Change to 5 days or:. make it fewer threads. 42 is too many when there are as many comments and threads and sub threads as this page. That way, when something is over 7 days, it will go off. Also like the idea of manually archiving and see no problem with Johnny-come-latelys who want to re-litigate. If consensus has been reached, and the discussion and/or RfC has been properly closed, and then somebody comes back and complains, they need to find a new consensus. They can start a new RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Good grief Somebody pick a number in-between and let's stop wasting time talking about this. Objective3000 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep at 7 days per the weekend argument. No problem with manually archiving threads which have been formally closed, but please leave 24 hours after closing. In other words, the person closing a thread should not immediately archive it, out of courtesy for other readers. — JFG talk 09:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Because arbitrary breaks are de rigueur in long, pointless discussions and I didn't want this one to lose out. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

lol at this thread... Anyway, I agree that we should keep the timing at 7 days. Editors may feel free to archive discussions manually before 7 days, if it is clear that the matter has been settled. Edge3 (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussions on Wikipedia talk pages are not pointless when a consensus is reached. Allowing (or at least understanding it may be needed occasionally) manual archiving when needed is just as good as the original request. I support it.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2017 (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.

"Former" in lead sentence

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
Consensus to remove "former" — JFG talk 09:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

During the recent discussion about the lead sentence, the word "former" was added in front of "television personality" by MelanieN upon a suggestion by Scjessey, however no other participant commented at the time. Now that the wider discussion has reached consensus about the descriptors of Trump's lifetime activities and their ordering, I posit that "former" is wholly unnecessary. First, if we want to be that precise, we would need to say "former businessman" as well as "former television personality". Second, we don't usually say in a biography that Mr. X is a "former mechanic", "former lawyer" or "former activist"; he is simply a "mechanic", "lawyer" or "activist". We occasionally say people are "retired", but that wouldn't make sense here. Therefore I move that we remove "former" from the lead sentence, so that it reads Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the President-elect of the United States. Please indicate your preference in the poll below. — JFG talk 16:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep "former"

Remove "former"

  1. As nominator. — JFG talk 16:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support for reasons stated in nomination. Additionally, I think we can do much better than "television personality". That descriptor usually applies to vapid people who are merely "famous for being famous". Now, people may argue that Trump is vapid (I think not), but he definitely had some major accomplishments as a "television star".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Per the nominator — Arnold Schwarzenegger was not a "former" actor when he was the governor of California, and neither was Ronald Reagan when he was the president. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 17:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Remove "former." Once he puts all his holdings in a blind trust (if he does) does he become a "former" businessman? Carptrash (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, Trump is absolutely not putting anything in a blind trust and so he will remain a businessman all through his presidency. In contrast, it is extremely unlikely he will be appearing as a television personality during his term of office, although I suppose anything is possible with this guy. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Over-accuracy. Doesn't earn its keep. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

Former television personality is incorrect

He is a current executive producer of Celeb Apprentice and appears in the credits. And who's to say he won't be a contestant on reality TV shows later on? 204.197.181.138 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

He is not appearing on TV, so "former" would be accurate. Not sure why another thread is necessary, but whatever. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Attached to existing discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:27, 18 January 2017 (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.

Protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Docolusanya (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


QT# HEs prez now

  Not done: Not for ten more minutes. The Constitution says 12 noon. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The moment he says "So help me god", go to my sandbox and copy the text, and paste everything EXCEPT the protection template and the categories. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 16:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Middle Initial

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

Seeing that Mr. Trump refers to himself as Donald J. Trump, both on his Twitter account and campaign website, shouldn't this article accurately reflect how he refers to himself? Shouldn't the name of this article be Donald J. Trump? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsam (talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions are described at WP:COMMONNAME. Fact of the matter is, no one calls Donald Trump Donald J. Trump except Donald Trump. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Not true, he's been introduced as next speaker numerous times as "Donald J. Trump". (Mike Pence consistently uses "Donald Trump" when introducing, which always sounds weird to me since almost all others don't.) --IHTS (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ihardlythinkso: However, that is at official campaign events and the like. They refer to him as Donald J. Trump because he wants to be referred to as Donald J. Trump. MB298 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You can't know that (the reason so many varied people introduce him using "J"; I'm sure it is a personal choice, and people differ). p.s. I don't advocate the page be moved. But is it mandated that name atop Infobox image exactly match article title? I know "J." has been added by others and reverted by others several times. I doubt it's counter policy, and "Donald J. Trump" atop Infobox image would reflect just fine the commonly heard "Donald J. Trump" in introductions. --IHTS (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That's correct; what the subject calls himself is not the criterion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, what the subject of a BLP calls himself does matter. This was a question way back when with Wendy Deng, former wife of Rupert Murdoch. I believe her article called her Wendy Murdoch, but she did not use that name when she was married to him, and the article was moved. Bill Clinton made it plain when he became president that he would be known as Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson. If Trump calls himself Donald J. Trump, Wikipedia shouldn't have a problem with it. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
See WP:COMMONNAME. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
However, almost all sources use "Donald Trump" instead of "Donald J. Trump" (except official Trump publications and the New York Times). He is almost universally regarded as Donald Trump. It is highly unnecessary to move the page. MB298 (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Up to now the Reliable Sources have always called him Donald Trump. The only thing that could change that IMO that would be the way he is styled as president. If official White House practice becomes to refer to him as "President Donald J. Trump" then we will have to look at that. But for now we should stay with what Reliable Sources have always called him. (BTW I said the same thing, back in the day, about Hillary Clinton: She always preferred Hillary Rodham Clinton, but she has mostly been referred to, especially in the past couple of years, as Hillary Clinton. Her own campaign eventually came around and started calling her Hillary Clinton, and that is how our article is titled. But if she had been elected and the White House made a practice of calling her "President Hillary Rodham Clinton," I thought we should follow suit. Official White House practice is important because that is probably how they are going to go into history.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN:Yes, I was thinking of how he would style himself as president when I made the comment. I was thinking of Bill Clinton's choice. He was also Bill Clinton as governor of Arkansas. However he calls himself as president, that is how his page should be titled. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
We can cross that bridge if we come to it, but I would oppose a move per WP:COMMONNAME. "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." ―Mandruss ☎ 04:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's wait a few months after he becomes US President and see what he's written mostly as. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mandruss: and @GoodDay: please see WP:INDENT. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I've indented properly, as I was responding to the question which began the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I increased the indent level of my last comment by 1, per WP:THREAD. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The official portrait of the President-elect is out.

Latest comment: 7 years ago44 comments19 people in discussion
Aaaand we're done. Official portait   Added (non-admin closure). Linguisttalk|contribs 15:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

File:Donald Trump Presidential portrait.jpg

Given that it's black and white and low-resolution, and likely not the official Presidential portrait, should we wait until the official one/a high-quality color portrait comes out? MB298 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, goody! It's not bad. I'm fine with it being used, for now at least. Linguist Moi? Moi. 19:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
We did say that we would wait for an official portrait, but really? Black and white, scowling? This is worse than any of the dozen or more portraits we have considered, and much worse than the one currently in the article. I concur that we should wait for his PRESIDENTIAL portrait, instead of this one as president elect. Surely the White House will come up with something better! --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
To be fair to the man, he is 70. Still, I agree it may be better to wait for the Presidential one. I don't mind either way, though. Linguist Moi? Moi. 19:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
If these people still find objections based on personal opinion of the subject's appearance (once the official portrait is released) I swear... Note that this was provided by the Joint Congressional Inauguration Committee, to accompany the Inauguration invitation. I just now extracted the original from the PDF. I recall something similar being done in 2009, when Obama and Biden were given portraits just for that purpose, but Pete Souza provided Obama's official portrait on January 14, 2009. Calibrador (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
He looks better in B&W. But, if I ever again respond to a discussion on DJT images, please take me to ANI and TBan me. Objective3000 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a given that, even if we spent the next 2 weeks deciding to use this photo, it would be replaced by the presidential photo when it comes out—without discussion. Hardly worth any perceived improvement in the interim, which would be almost entirely subjective as always. I share Objective3000's sentiment; the whole point of the RfC and the one before it was to close this time sink. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, I would not support a change right now, but personally, I prefer this photo to the one currently in the article, minus the fact that it is B&W, for I don't see a change in consensus. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
As a procedural matter, I don't think this is the intent of the word "official" in the RfC. The words "White House" were used by five !voters, with zero !voters saying anything about "other" official photos that might precede the White House photo. The fact that the words "White House" didn't make it into the close statement is the only reason this thread can't be collapsed like all the other out-of-process threads before it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I have to support using the President-elect′s official government portrait in the President-elect′s official Wikipedia infobox. MB298 observed that it's "black and white and low resolution". Ironically, so is every presidential portrait on every item of US currency in circulation. (Indeed, the image almost looks suitable for engraving.) This is what the President-elect has given us; at the very least, it should be included for archival purposes. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC) 03:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
What on earth does U.S. currency have to do with Wikipedia infobox photos??? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
They're both supposed to be "official", correct? And wasn't that the point of the RfC? This is the subject's official portrait photo; it's the subject's only official portrait photo. It can be added immediately; and it can be restored immediately. (What's not to like about that?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
See my above comment beginning, "As a procedural matter". And what's obviously good to you will not be so obviously good to others, I hope we've learned that much in the Donald Trump Infobox Photo Saga. It is not so obviously good to me, for example. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Where did I say it's looks "good"? All the matters is whether it's official. Not how it looks. The point of the RfC: use the official presidential photo for the presidential article. Analogically, use the official president-elect photo for the president-elect article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC) 16:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Well if we're playing "Where Did I Say", where did I say that you said it looks good? I said you said it is good (second half of the contraction "what's"). The point of the RfC: use the official presidential photo for the Donald Trump article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The consensus was to wait for the official presidential photo. No more arguments!--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @MelanieN: Thinking about it, a scowl is exactly the pose Donald Trump would choose for his official portrait, no? It perfectly describes everything. That said, I bet they colorize it before it's "official". This must be a draft. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
You're probably right. I have read that he consciously models his facial expression on the Clint Eastwood scowl. That will be an interesting change from the usual official portrait. Remember all the people insisting that whatever portrait we used must feature "a flag and a smile"? That might not be what he's looking for. As far as this portrait goes, if people want to use it that's OK with me. I hope they are prepared for the onslaught of "why are you using such a terrible photo, you are obviously trying to make him look bad, why do you hate him?!?!?" that will erupt when they do. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 
FDR didn't smile either. — JFG talk 09:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC) ————→
That onslaught is not OK with me; since it is inevitable as you say, the photo is not OK with me. This is what process is for. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the cover of Time when he was a candidate back 2015. They mentioned that no matter how many shots they took, this was how he always looked. I don't think it's a scowl. It seems to be how he poses. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I happen to agree with Muboshgu, MelanieN, and SW3 5DL about the 'Eastwoodesque' look. But I don't feel like it's our job to tell Trump whether this is or isn't his official portrait: He's saying (by implication) that it is, not that it isn't! It can accordingly be added (and if need be, restored) per RfC. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no RfC that has reached that consensus, and no amount of convoluted reasoning will conjure one out of thin air. The consensus is for a White House photo. If anyone felt that a non-White House official photo should suffice, they had their chance to say so in the last RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Double agree, but do think that this b&w photo belongs in the appropriate subsection of Presidential transition of Donald Trump. But not here in the biography, and definitely not in the infobox. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Triple agree.. Let's not go through the photo bit again. It was decided to wait for the official photo. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's wait for the White House official photo of Trump. PS- A black & white photo in 2017? I don't think so. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Much as I think this hilariously bad black and white image is all kinds of awesome, I agree that this article should wait for the official portrait that will doubtless come very shortly. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Scjessey: Agree it is so bad it's awesome. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the sourcing

I'm agreeing this isn't the 'official portrait', but am wondering what it is and where it is from.

First, I notice it's related to the senate.gov, not whitehouse.gov or NARA as yet and not 'official' position portrait because he's not yet official. It's also not greatagain.gov or shareamerica.gov which would seem the more likely / authoritative sources for the president-elect camp. The senate website is about the inauguration process, and the image seems a photoshopped side item for the website from prior imagery. (At least when I do a yahoo search it seems to show a prior color image without a background of summertime whitehouse and flag in the background. So -- anyone know what the root image is from ?

Second, I'm noticing the filename is odd and not the one on their main page. The senate site shows a very similar but slightly different image here when you scroll down on their home page. So what webpage has this photo ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Official program for the inauguration released by the Joint Congressional Inauguration Committee: http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Entire%20Program.pdf Calibrador (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Calibrador - No, that's where the apparently Photoshop of a previously-existing image was published ... but where is the original photo from ? I'm thinking it isn't from any of the debates and doesn't look like a campaign image so ... just do not know the source. (p.s. possible copyright issue there too, if the senate got a limited usage license on the image.)

In colour

See here : it's probably not the definitive official portrait, though. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

We seem to be in accord that we want the official presidential one. That one goes to all agencies and governmental offices. It's in the public domain. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a legit official portrait; we can't speculate whether it's the "definitive" one. Added it to the article. — JFG talk 15:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Phew!! Thanks. Linguisttalk|contribs 15:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
If it's official, then I agree. I like it very much. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Finally. Now I suggest we immediately close this discussion in preparation for archiving. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2017 (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.

Followup to closure of the "portrait" discussion

Don't agree with the sudden insertion of the new image & the quick closure of the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the insertion and closure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
IMO this was handled out of process (hey, here's a color version! wham! bam! inserted and closed! 19 minutes elapsed from start to finish!) but it will hopefully be only for a few days - until we get his actual, formal portrait from the White House. Meanwhile, suggestions are needed for how to deal with the "why did you use such an ugly picture of Trump?" comments that are likely to follow. At least they will be fewer than if we had used the black-and-white picture. Maybe we could just say that he LIKES being portrayed squinting and scowling. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, official photos almost always take precedence over unofficial ones, and of course the question of which crop of the official photo to use remains open (see survey below). So, I'm still okay with the closure of the discussion above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The response to "Why did you use such an ugly picture of Trump?" is as follows: "Per existing consensus. [The consensus is not 'Use the official White House portrait unless some editors find it ugly.'] You are free to start a new RfC per WP:CCC, if you are prepared to take some heat for wasting further editor time on the infobox photo, and provided you understand that we may reach a consensus to abort the RfC for that reason." In my view nothing further should be said outside of RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm just glad we have a professional and official photo. Once there is an official White House photo of him as President and not President-elect (like Obama's current infobox image), there shouldn't be a problem with replacing it. CatcherStorm talk 15:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

So an administrator will make the inauguration changes?

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

It appears that the article has been fully protected. I've actually never seen an article in mainspace protected fully before, but that's besides the point. Question is, which admin will change "President-elect" to "45th President of the United States?" CatcherStorm talk 16:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a sandbox at User:Eric0928/sandbox4, mentioned a couple of threads above. There's a few admins around, but if someone wants to double-check the sandbox you're welcome to give me a ping to copy it over at the appropriate time (WP:RFPP or WP:AN are your other options). -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: I have added the appropriate infobox to that sandbox page. The infobox has Trump as the incumbent president. The swearing-in ceremony is currently in progress so you should probably make the changes now. CatcherStorm talk 16:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
People tend to be rather particular about timing :/ -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Correction: the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution is particular about timing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Told you ;)   Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am requesting that an administrator change "incoming president" at the top to "current president". CatcherStorm talk 17:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC) CatcherStorm talk 17:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Presidintial term: January 20, 2017 2605:6000:1525:81F9:7D6D:69DE:A1AF:D285 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  Not done - It is unclear what you want changed, but a date is not a presidential term. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Inauguration edits (WP:ER)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I created a sandbox if you want to make changes for when his inauguration takes place (changing all the dates and offices, etc.), When merging, make sure you keep the categories (I removed them per WP:NOUSERCAT), and also keep the protection templates because a bot removed them, make an edit to the sandbox if you spot something. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 13:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

We need the President of the United States navbox content fixed. It should read January 20, 2017–present, not just January 20, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be so much easier if the full page protection was to be lifted. It is no longer necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  Done Additionally, the protection was reduced to extended confirmed protection. Mz7 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, protection lightened - have at it. ECP is left on as a precaution for a day or two, after which either I or someone else can reduce it to semi-protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

On the infobox, change "New York City" to "New York City, New York, U.S." under the "Born" section. Misterpither (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  Not done per Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs, item 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think that Queens, New York should be put in place after place of birth. Israeliano (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  Not done per #Current consensuses and RfCs, item 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Please add https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Donald_Trump to See also. Thanks. Derntno (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  Done - Added to External links section per WP:LAYOUT.- MrX 19:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

And not once but twice! ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  Done I removed the duplicate entry. Case closed. — JFG talk 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Worst Comb Over in History?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Its terrible, doesnt look he has hair just a stupidly bad comb over.--Simon19801 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. MB298 (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Consensus or no consensus for re-colored Trump inauguration program photo

Latest comment: 7 years ago34 comments10 people in discussion
Discussion now moot because of the release of the official portrait. New thread below discussing that. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this discussion: #The official portrait of the President-elect is out. is not a new consensus. For one thing, the portrait is not the official White House portrait, or nor is there any evidence that it's official anything. Second, consensus is not determined by one of the few participants in the discussion after only a few minutes. I'm disappointed to see several editors pointing to that discussion as justification for inserting a re-colored version of the inauguration program photo into the article while ignoring the bona fide consensus. I'm looking to Twitbookspacetube, Rick4512, Vjmlhds, RedBear2040 to explain these end runs around consensus.- MrX 01:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to make the point that I have not once pointed to that discussion as justification. I am referring to the official consensus (Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs), which clearly states:
"1. Use File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg as the infobox image until the official White House portrait becomes available. (link) – Update 17 January 2017: official portrait released (link 2)."
This is the official photo that the Senate released. If they upload a different portrait on the White House website after he is inaugurated, then that one should be used. At the moment, however, this is what we've been given and, per the current consensus quoted above, this is what we should use. RedBear2040 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps there's some confusion about the term "released". Printing a photo in a program is not "releasing" it, nor does it render it official.- MrX 01:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
If the program is official and the program is released then it would seem that its contents are official and released.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The !votes at Talk:Donald_Trump#The_.22airport.22_photo look lopsided.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Consensus was blatantly to use the official photo once released (Until you tried to remove that point) - The official photo is now released so the consensus is to use the official photo. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you understand how consensus works. It's not a vote and it's not a 20 minute discussion closed by one of the editors commenting in the discussion. Your attempt to edit war this claim of consensus into the list at the top of the page is also troubling. The encyclopedia is not built by brute force and this type of aggressive conduct can lead to sanctions.- MrX 01:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The note was introduced by @JFG: in this edit almost two days ago. The only person having a problem with that since then, is you. How does that make consensus in your favor? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Twitbookspacetube: Not true. Several editors beside myself have opposed the photo that was taken from from inauguration program and re-colored.- MrX 02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Nevertheless, consensus is blatantly clear that the official photo is to be used when released. The current photo in the article is the official photo which is supported by consensus. As such, you need a NEW consensus before you change it. And that has not happened yet. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The first point on Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs literally says that the re-colored picture is consensus. Do not think that this is aggressive and do not try to put sanctions on me or anyone else. According to Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs, the re-colored picture is what we should use. Until another picture comes out, we should use that one. RedBear2040 (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
MrX sounds like someone who is playing "his way or the highway" here...consensus CLEARLY says to add the color cropped pic...don't know what the issue is. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Please refer to my comment about how consensus does not work. - MrX 02:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

MrX The only editors who say such things are the ones consensus goes against. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I support in general the comments by Twitbookspacetube, Rick4512, Vjmlhds, RedBear2040, and Anythingyouwant, oppose in general the argument by MrX, support in particular his complaint about colorization, and nonetheless support using the colorized image OR grayscale image as opposed to the old image per talk page consensus. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I think MrX has a valid point, he's just not being heard. This might be the official photo, but nobody here knows that for sure. Snark doesn't make it so. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: I respectfully wish to point out that this was the photo released for the Inauguration by the United States Senate. Short of a portrait on whitehouse.gov, it can't get much more official than that. Also, you are technically correct: we don't know 100% for sure if this is the official portrait. However, we also don't know that it's not. What we do know is that the Senate has included this picture in black and white at https://www.inaugural.senate.gov/58th-inauguration/ceremony. Worst case scenario is that we were wrong and we put the new one up afterwards. RedBear2040 (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
There is enough doubt and criticism surrounding the new image that the reasonable, non-WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is to wait for the uncontroversial photo, the one that virtually everybody will agree on. That may be asking too much, granted. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, until an even more official photo is released, WP:CONSENSUS says to use the current photo from an official source. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The whole point of this current dispute is that the RfC consensus is not nearly as clear as you make it out to be. Reasonable editors can interpret it in either of two ways in good faith. It is nobody's fault that the RfC failed to anticipate this situation, but the fact remains that it did not anticipate it, resulting in an ambiguous consensus. That leaves us with three choices: (1) yet another RfC, (2) agreement to go the uncontroversial route, and (3) continue the current battleground approach. Of the three, I prefer #2. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I prefer #2 as well, and if people stopped edit warring against the blatantly clear consensus for the current image, it would help a lot. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
blatantly clear consensus - Saying it repeatedly, even with words like "blatantly" thrown in for enphasis, don't make it true. Carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Use File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg as the infobox image until the official White House portrait becomes available. (link) – Update 17 January 2017: official portrait released (link 2) seems blatantly clear to me. And the current photo is from an official source and used for an official event, how much more official does it need to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitbookspacetube (talk • contribs) 09:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The additional notation was added[1] 66 minutes after the colorized photo appeared on this page.[2] The items in that list are only as weighty as the consensus supprting them via the links, and it's highly circular to use that entry to show consensus when the discussion used to support it is itself highly contested. The only reason that part of the entry remains in the list is that most editors understand this relationship, so they don't see any need to add the list to the field of battle. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_38#Trump_Photo_2_Rfc for the consensus to use a certain image until the official one is released. And as far as all available evidence shows, this IS the official photo. It is from and official source and used for an official event. I ask again, how much more official does it need to be? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I already countered that argument above. You are not required to agree with me, but I would like to see some indication that you heard me and considered my argument fairly. I am not seeing that, and I am not going to continue pointless circular debate with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I am listening to your argument, but also attempting to point out the consensus and facts to you, but you are not willing to listen to reason. When the article is unprotected, anyone's continuation of anti-consensus edit warring to remove the current official photo from an official source and used for an official event will be met by harsh sanctions from any uninvolved admin who receives the report. Those are the facts. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't make ridiculous threats on behalf of admins; it makes you look silly and inexperienced. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
And deliberately being unwilling to listen to consensus and facts and answer inconvenient questions makes you TOTALLY reasonable! *eyeroll* Twitbookspacetube (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mandruss: has got it right. This is battleground behavior. The page has been locked over this and there is no excuse for it. Earlier, MrX pointed out this problem but nobody listened. There is no real consensus if we don't even know if this photo is official and copyright free and therefore, this constant battle over it is down to "I want my way." All that's been had for that attitude is the locked page. When the official portrait is released, the one that goes into all the government agencies and VA hospitals and local federal courts, that's the one that will go into this article. It will be the official one and it will be copyright free. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
And until that even more official photo is released, the current official photo from an official source and used for an official event will suffice as the official photo that consensus clearly dictates that we must use. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the President-elect image of Trump. However, it will eventually be replaced during this week by a Presidential portrait of Trump. Therefore, I won't be losing any sleep over the current 'temporary' image :) GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A new portrait has been released on whitehouse.gov. here. Is this public domain and OK to use in the infobox? RedBear2040 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2017 (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.

Here's why I requested full protection

Latest comment: 7 years ago31 comments15 people in discussion
Full protection has been lifted, official White House portrait is in place per RfC consensus. Old news. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

Here's what has been going on at the article:

  • (Talk page: 1/17 14:24 a cropped colorized new photo was proposed, described as an official photo; consensus at previous RfC had been to wait for an official photo)
  • 1/17, 15:25 The new cropped, colorized photo was added to the article by JFG.
  • (Talk page: 1/17 15:36 The photo discussion was non-admin closed by Linguist with 5 participants.)
  • 1/17, 17:14, Cropped photo was replaced with uncropped colorized version by Calibrador
  • 1/18, 00:23 Original photo restored by MrX.
  • 1/18, 01:35, Cropped colorized version restored by Count Awesome
  • 1/18, 01:39 Original photo restored by Muboshgu
  • 1/18, 05:59 Cropped colorized version restored by Jashualeverburg1
  • 1/18, 06:17, Original photo restored by Mandruss
  • (Talk page: 1/18 15:07 the cropped colorized version was formally proposed.)
  • 1/18, 23:43, Uncropped colorized version restored by Vjmlhds
  • (Talk page: At this point the talk page tally for it was 3 support, 1 oppose)
  • 1/18, 23:54 Original photo restored by Muboshgu
  • 1/19, 00:25, Cropped Uncropped colorized version restored by RedBear2040
  • (Talk page: At this point the talk page tally was 8 support, 1 oppose)
  • 1/19, 00:31 Original photo restored by Ihardlythinkso
  • 1/19, 00:34 Uncropped colorized version restored by Rick4512
  • 1/19, 00:38, Original photo restored by MrX
  • 1/19, 00:42 Uncropped colorized version restored by Twitbookspacetube
  • 1/19 01:05 Cropped colorized version restored by Twitbookspacetube
  • At this point full protection was imposed to stop the edit warring. Come on, folks, you all know better. --MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Why is the new photo being forced into the infobox, without a consensus? GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Because there is a consensus to use the new photo once it was released. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
No version is being forced onto the page. People were edit-warring back and forth, and some admin locked the page on The Wrong Version   Next step is to define a new consensus. — JFG talk 03:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
And if no consensus is defined, the previous consensus for the current image remains. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
A discussion that has only ran for 12 hours (and that duplicates another discussion in which 5 editors opposed the same photo) does not constitute consensus. Who was it who said "some people,... are only able to edit Wikipedia once a week.... Active editors should not be excluded from discussions here,..."?- MrX 03:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Go further back. The consensus for the image you were edit warring for states that once the official photo is released, the photo you edit warred for would be dropped in favour of the official one. As far as the evidence tells us, that official one is in the article right now. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@MrX: I believe you are misinterpreting which discussion embodies consensus. The numerous debates about Trump's infobox picture were settled on 12 December 2016, when the last RfC was concluded with overwhelming support to keep the 2015 picture until an official portrait is available, then use that. All I did was implement this consensus. I understand that you are not convinced this colorized image should be considered an official portrait, but that's a separate debate, to be settled at Commons (and it's trending towards Keep). Of course consensus can change and the community is welcome to open a new discussion on that basis (which seems to be happening at the bizarrely-named "airport" section), however while this discussion happens, the new image must be considered the "previous consensus" as defined on December 12. — JFG talk 04:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: You are correct about the December consensus, but as you correctly point out, the assertion that the re-colored inauguration program photo is the "official portrait" is debatable. In fact, it lacks any evidence whatsoever as far as I can tell. Some editors seem to assume that it is official, I'm guessing because it's the most presidential looking photograph of Trump, but reasonable people disagree. When there is a publication that publishes a photo and says "here's the official Presidential portrait", then we will know that is the official Presidential portrait. By the way, I doubt it will be monochrome, and really doubt that it will be re-colored. For anyone who cares, the reason I say re-colored rather than colored, is that it's likely the image was captured by a digital camera in color, and then converted to monochrome, and then hand-colored by one of our own editors.- MrX 04:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Until official confirmation one way or the other, the current image is to be considered official per the evidence we have now. Those sanctions you warned me about go both ways. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
If you are aware of the sanctions, you can be blocked at any time. This photo is not worth that. We'll know soon enough if this is the official portrait. I imagine it is or it would not be on the official program. But edit warring and getting the page locked are not helping. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
By the same token, anyone edit warring against the consensus for the current image can also be blocked at any time after being made aware of or acknowledging the sanctions. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN, your summary line "1/19, 00:25, Cropped colorized version restored by RedBear2040" was wrong, I've corrected it. Also, your summary line comment "(At this point the talk page tally was 8 support, 1 oppose)" is unclear and ambiguous since it implies voting between 2 different images, when the edit warring involved at least 3 images. Also, the consensus image throughout was made ambiguous/unclear by attempts to clarify it at Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs, so your generalized shaming is really not appropriate. --IHTS (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Just want to quickly point to precedent with Barack Obama in 2008/2009 before he was inaugurated and was President-elect. This verison is from December 31, 2008 (his official portrait was released on January 13 or 14, 2009) is the equivalent of what has so far been released of Donald Trump. Both of the photos are from the Joint Congressional Inauguration Committee's official program for the inauguration. Just wanted to make sure to include precedent. Calibrador (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Calibrador - That's clearly not correct. That Obama photo was not from any inauguration committee. The Obama image metadata clearly says it came from the Obama Transition site change.gov/about/photo, plainly directed for release for use and posted with Creative Commons license.
Looks to me that the Obama's transition 2009 period photos seem to go like so:
  • 14 Jan 2009 18:26 - 'official' serious image with flag here
(from official photographer Pete Souza, via change.gov)
  • 13 Jan 2009 09:32 - 'poster' smiling image with flag here
(via change.gov, dated Nov 2008 and reviewed by WP admin 7 Dec)
  • 5 Nov 2009 13:25 - paneled 2005 senator photo here
(via Obama.senate.gov/newsroom ; apparently WP quick patch for deleted image)
  • 5 Nov 2009 09:00 - mixup, image later deleted here
(no idea what that was)
  • prior - stark grey backdrop here
(via Senate.gov/artandhistory )
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I am correct. Feel free to look back upon the 56th Inauguration invitation. Calibrador (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Page Protection Frivolous

OP indef-blocked for socking, nothing constructive here. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Let the record show that MelanieN has not provided a single compelling reason to support her draconian request for full page protection. Her irritation is over an absurd dispute regarding a photograph. Since MelanieN evidently doesn't take page protection seriously, there is no reason for anyone else to. This cannot stand.AllWeKnowAreTheFacts,Ma'am (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN explained her reasoning in detail, we get that you don't find it compelling. Admin Oshwah considered her request and judged that protection was necessary to restore the article to stability. If autoconfirmed editors engage in extended edit-warring at an article under ArbCom remedies, there is little alternative to full protection, unless you prefer to temp-block all of the editors involved. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I have blocked AllWeKnowAreTheFacts,Ma'am, an account created a few hours ago. It's pretty frivolous IMO to use a flyby sock for disrupting controversial pages, as here, here and here. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC).
I thought I smelled foot odour! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Refreshing break

Independently of the arguments pro and contra the new picture, I feel that a 3-day lock provides a refreshing break to all of us valiant editors. How nice it is to envision sailing through the inauguration weekend without monitoring the Trump page constantly! — JFG talk 13:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

On that, we can agree - It'll be very nice to not see the usual vandalism during major events. But it would still be a good idea to keep an eye on related pages. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Timing

There is a timing issue here. The protecting administrator chose to protect the page for three days. That will include the inauguration, at which point Trump will take the oath of office and we ought to change the article from "president-elect" to "president". We have three options.

  • We could just leave it saying "president elect" until January 22; I don't think that is acceptable.
  • An administrator could edit through the full-protection to make that one change, while leaving the image question in limbo. I could even do that if necessary.
  • A third and IMO best approach would be for us to resolve our differences in the next 24 hours and reach an actual consensus, and then ask the protecting admin to lift the protection. This is what we are supposed to be doing during this "refreshing break". By "actual consensus" I do not mean for one faction to simply proclaim that they have consensus while another strongly disagrees; that's what got us into this mess. We could ask for a neutral outsider to step in and anoint one image as consensus; that's the usual way such things are decided but it probably couldn't be accomplished in the 24 hours we have left - and it might not be accepted by all parties considering the strong passions that seem to be involved here. The best approach, and the one most convincing to the protecting administrator, would be for consensus to actually be reached - or at least for one version to become so clearly the majority choice that the minority would withdraw their objections and agree to allow the majority version in the article without attempting to remove it (at least temporarily and while subject to further discussion; WP:CCC). At this point I frankly don't see any likelihood of this happening. Up to now the discussion has mostly consisted of people talking past each other about whether the new version is or is not "official" within the meaning of the previous RfC. Come on, folks, can we please try to work together like Wikipedians and get this resolved? Or are we going to wait out the 3-day break and then go back to edit warring? --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Requests (which will be incoming) to update the article in those areas after Noon EST tomorrow, will most likely be carried out by administrators, without dispute :) GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure no one will object to changing "president-elect" to "president" tomorrow, assuming that Trump actually takes the oath. Any other changes should use the edit protected process, if they have consensus. The image discussion should be allowed to run at least a few days.- MrX 15:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. CBS527Talk 16:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

DRN

I have filed a request at WP:DRN - please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Donald_Trump Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Request to Lock Page

What is wrong with you people? We need this page locked, posthaste! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.136.141.60 (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

it already is until Jan. 22. MB298 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2017 (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.

Requested move 20 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago25 comments21 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW — JFG talk 22:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


Donald Trump → Donald J. Trump – He's now the 45th president of the United States. He calls himself Donald J. Trump, he took the oath as Donald J. Trump, and I think we should call the article Donald J. Trump. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey: Requested move

That's because they were commonly referred to as Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and George W. Bush. So were Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson. That was their WP:COMMONNAME. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Richard Nixon did not generally use their middle initial so our articles don't either. . --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2017 (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.

Karen McDougal?

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Searching the archives, I can't find any mention of this story, which doesn't seem to lack either reliable sources or widespread reporting:

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not every "scandal" is notable. This is an encyclopedic BLP, not a tabloid archive. — JFG talk 03:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:FART is an essay, not a guideline or a policy. WP:ENC is a list of links to policies; if you have a specific one in mind, it would be helpful to mention which one, and which part specifically. WP:BLP is lengthy and its main point - to make sure that biographical information is verifiable, neutrally stated, and not original research - isn't an issue here. Again, being specific - in this case, about what part of WP:BLP you think is at issue - would be helpful. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The BLP issue comes from accusations and it also seems to lack WP:DUE. What I think they are trying to say with WP:FART, even though just an essay, is that its not notable just because RS report on it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
A similar point is made at WP:ONUS, which does not suffer from Only An Essay disease. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I certainly agree that consensus is the overriding determination of whether something should or shouldn't be in an article; part of that is definitely about how much weight (space) to give to a particular issue (basically, a WP:UNDUE question). I don't think that one sentence (at most two) in the article on Donald Trump would be giving this issue undue weight, but I haven't looked at where it might fit in (if anywhere). Since, so far, there isn't anyone proposing that this issue be included in the article (I'm on the fence about it, hence my question rather proposed wording, or an actual edit to the article), I'm content to see if there is any further discussion. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why this would be appropriate here. These are all claims being made and this article is not the place to litigate claims. It doesn't matter the weight or consensus. There's no there 'there' unless she won something in a court of law, not the court of journalistic opinion which has no proof of a 'catch and kill' story. Firstly, she went to the National Enquirer, not the New York Times, which would not have paid her. Secondly, it's also possible the Enquirer did investigate and found her story to be less than truthful. Buying all the rights assure them of an exclusive. We don't know the truth and this is not the place to investigate it. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Pied Piper

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

"n part due to his fame, Trump's run for president received an unprecedented amount of unpaid coverage from the media that elevated his standing in the Republican primaries."

We should absolutely mention clinton's pied piper strategy that absolutely backfired here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4201:9810:5489:3299:A6D1:A822 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If we use alleged, hacked e-mails as a reliable source for the internals of the Clinton campaign, then, seems to me, we must also use the leaked, alleged Trump dossier as a reliable source for Trump’s activities. Or not. Objective3000 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The number of trump supporters using the "BUT SHILLARY GUIZ!!1!" argument is simply pathetic. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
That seems like a false equivalency. No one is really denying the validity of the emails, while many have questioned the dossier. Btw I am not commenting on if one or the other are reliable sources. More stating that if one is reliable, that does not make the other reliable as well. PackMecEng (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
We don't know whether the e-mails are original and complete, and don't know the context. We do not know that there was an active "Pied Piper strategy". A Google search doesn't find the needed, respected news sources. Objective3000 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
In reguards to the "Pied Piper" stratage, several reliable sources imply the email was valid Salon and Politico for example. What they actually did to act on it I do not see right now. But I'm not sure if they acted is the point of mentioning it, more that they had a plan for it. As for the rest of the emails The Daily Beast says "The vast majority were genuine", for what its worth. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Important not to violate WP:Original Research if the emails are used. Also, a source preferably more upstanding than The Daily Beast should be found, if possible. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Won with 2500000 less votes

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

2.5 Million votes less is an important fact and should be included--Simon19801 (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This information is already available in sections Election to the presidency and Electoral history. There is consensus not to include numbers in the lede (see item 4 above. — JFG talk 13:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No blind trust

Latest comment: 7 years ago42 comments23 people in discussion

Should the article mention Trump's position on putting his business in a blind trust? [3] SW3 5DL (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Do we have any information on that? I think he has just tossed out the term "blind trust" a few times; has he now provided any details about what he is going to do? (Most people think that his proposed plan to have his sons run the business is not in any sense a blind trust.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The only way this should be in the article is if it is in a section detailing the many things Trump has said he would do but hasn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Has he yet explained what he is going to do about his business? During the campaign he said he would explain in December. In December he said he would explain in January. If he has, I missed it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, he did bring it up at his press conference. It may take some untangling to figure out exactly what he said - aside from the fact that his two oldest sons will run the business, while he and Ivanka resign all roles. He will continue to have a financial stake in the business (a stake which has never been defined; I think it is possible that he is the SOLE owner since it is all reported through his personal tax returns.) [4] I'll do some more research and see what we can say. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No, no blind trust. The advisor (I didn't catch her name) explained why--he can't "unknow" that he owns Trump Tower, for example. I watched it live on PBS's youtube channel.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Right, not a blind trust, just a trust. I think I have a decent paragraph which I will add to The Trump Organization as well as here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM discussion about trusts — JFG talk 16:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MelanieN, as I understand it, the distinction between a blind trust and something that is just-a-trust, is that one can examine the accounting books of the latter, AND discuss those books with the trustees. Refs mentioned in a moment definitely say that Trump is not setting up a truly-blind-trust, but that he is restricting his books-access (overall P&L only) and his discussions (pledges not to talk business), in addition to relinquishing legal control over operations to Eric and DonaldJr. As pointed out by Zigzig20s above, it is possible to have his assets in what is a blind trust in the literal sense -- accounting books kept by an independent firm which is legally prohibited from allowing Trump personally or any of his staff/connections/etc from seeing the detailed contents thereof -- and yet Trump, with his decades in the real estate business, likely still having a decent idea of how the overall real estate market in NYC is doing just from watching the stock market and whatnot. Some pundits have been saying that Trump should *sell* all his assets, illiquid real estate mostly, to some non-family third party, but this is a catch-22: forced quick sales of high-value assets tend to go at firesale prices (hurting Trump's net worth and his brand-reputation), and simultaneously no matter WHO bought each property Trump would be accused of getting an over-valued deal (helping his net worth but hurting his potus-reputation). So to avoid that double-trap, Trump is NOT selling/divesting the major real estate properties, just relinquishing control over and most knowledge of bookkeeping-details via trust-vehicle#1, whereas trust vehicle#2 has his liquid assets (cash/stocks/similar) which the sources don't say much about but which might be an actual blind trust?
Newspaper which mentions some of that,[5] plus other interesting details -- Trump hotels will turn over profits from foreign governments staying at them, to the federal Treasury department. It also said there would be a new ethics advisor, which this ref says will have the title of Chief Compliance Officer.[6] Both that ref, and this one,[7] talk about Trump returning to the business at some point (but I think they are missing the forest for the trees... even if Trump never returned he would still be the beneficiary of the trust). And since his immediate family members will be involved with the business, there are also some kinds of broad non-verbal communication (e.g. Eric Trump shows up at thanksgiving in a new limo with fancy clothes versus Eric Trump shows up after riding the subway with just the t-shirt on his back type of thing) that will inherently clue Trump into how well his holdings are doing on the market, in a general sense at least. USNews ref from before says kids are not "truly independent" trustees, for short. I saw one ref characterize this kind of somewhat-blind-trust situation as a one-eye-open-one-eye-closed type of half-blind trust, back on November 11th however,[8] and wikipedia currently mentions the phrase at Presidential transition of Donald Trump. The newly-inserted-as-of-2016 subsection on 'qualified blind trusts' at the blind trust article, is another phrasing. CBS cannot resist making the obvious build-a-wall metaphorical comparison,[9] about the semi-blind-trust versus the southern border. CBS also mentions that CFO Allen Weisselberg will also be involved, though unclear whether as a trustee like the two kids or as an advisor to them as trustees. And CBS makes the comparison to the conflict-of-interest concerns during the four months of VP Nelson_Rockefeller#confirmation hearings in 1974, where he was opposed by repubs like Barry Goldwater as too liberal, AND by some dems as too rich. Like Trump, Rockefeller also ended up NOT use a truly blind trust. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
A blind trust is basically impossible for someone like Trump. As his lawyer pointed out, he DOES know what he owns, and selling it all or giving it to his children is not practical or even really possible. So we will call it what he calls it: a trust. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree, we should call it a trust. It is legally a trust, as the lawyer explained. Trump owns or is involved in 500 companies. He is not like the usual candidate who owns stock. They sell the stock and put the money in a blind trust for investing that the president has no contact or knowledge of the trades. That is not at all the case with Trump. To sell of his companies would destroy his business and that is not at all required by the Ethics Office, at least as I read it. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that there will be both a blind trust vehicle (for generic stocks/cash/liquidAssets), and also a 'constrained' trust vehicle (for major real estate holdings). So for the sake of accuracy, in Legal affairs of Donald Trump, or wherever the gory details are covered, wikipedia should be clear that Trump is creating a blind trust but that it will only hold a tiny portion of his net worth, the rest going to a standard trust controlled by two of his kids and the Trump.com CFO with the advice of a newly-created compliance officer role. Here in *this* article we can just say 'Trump created a trust' or something slightly simplistic, but I suggest we have a footnote saying that technically he created two, and wikilink to the proper place... speaking of which, where is the proper place? I don't seen anything about trusts, blind or otherwise, over at Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Is that stuff not being covered therein? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I don’t think it makes any sense to use the term “blind trust” at all if this is the case. If all the important assets are not in a blind trust, but a tiny portion of assets are; it’s misleading to claim there exists a blind trust. Reductio ad absurdum, you could put $1 in a blind trust and claim you have set up a blind trust for part of your assets. Objective3000 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That IP User above seems to have a God understanding of trusts. While it is easy for us regular users to like big words, like trusts, we should let experts speak and study their ideas first. Is a formal trust, like a Donald Trump Trust UA 1/18/2017 M Rosenfeld E Trump Ttes, being formed? Including retitling of assets? Unfortunately, the press often gets this (and medical stories) wrong because of lack of reporter knowledge. Let's here it from the IP and experts. Samswik (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Since we allegedly need consensus now

Would you agree that the addition made at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=759481551&oldid=759472321 was reasonable? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems fine to me, too. But doubtless someone will be along shortly to open an RfC... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No. Unverified, unverifiable, the report contains numerous easily observable factual errors, and every reputable source is keeping it at arms length. Even the ones that love to blame Russia for everything know that this doesn't smell right. Wikipedia should not be including unverified and defamatory information about living people, especially not in one of the most highly trafficked pages on the entire project. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
That proposed edit was reasonable. It did not include any of the stuff Russia supposedly has on him, just the existence of the addendum. But we haven't gotten consensus here to say anything about it. The fact that there was this additional briefing is receiving massive attention today in spite of all the other news there is (cabinet nominee hearings, Obama's farewell speech, etc.) I say we give it 48 hours. Trump will undoubtedly be asked about it repeatedly in today's press conference, so it will still be news tomorrow. If the existence of these allegations is still big news Friday we should probably mention it - along with the denials from Trump and from Russia. For now I think the existing mention at 2016 United States election interference by Russia is enough for this encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it should remain. "In January 2017, Trump was briefed on as yet unproven allegations that Russia had "potentially compromising personal and financial information" about him." That is fact and there are abundant very RS which confirm it. Whether the allegations are true or false is totally irrelevant to the inclusion of that sentence. It is whether we delve into the allegations that is currently debatable, not this. Restore it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is reasonable and should be restored. It would be better if it was edited to include who gave the briefing (leaders in the Intel community). Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN, give it 48 hours. WP:NOTNEWS and all. We could be having a scandal a day for the next four years for all we know, and not every one of them would merit inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I’m nearly always in favor of waiting a couple days before adding new, controversial info. This is no exception. OTOH, I wouldn’t argue against including some, careful, earlier mention in articles specifically about the election or Russia-U.S. relations. Objective3000 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The supposed details of what Russia has are actually worse than gossip; they are BLP violations and I revdel'ed them when they were mentioned here. The fact that there was an amendment to the Russia report, saying there are reports that Russia has some bad stuff about Trump, is not gossip - and if you think that amendment to the report is "meant to discredit him" then you have a shockingly poor opinion of the professionalism of our intelligence organizations. In any case, I agree it should not be included yet - not until it demonstrates that it is more than just a passing news sensation. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
"The decision of top intelligence officials to give the president, the president-elect and the so-called Gang of Eight — Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress and the intelligence committees — what they know to be unverified, defamatory material was extremely unusual." and "The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of Mrs. Clinton. " (Goldman, Adam; Rosenberg, Matthew; Shane, Scott (January 10, 2017). "Trump Received Unsubstantiated Report That Russia Had Damaging Information About Him". The New York Times. Retrieved January 11, 2017.) Zigzig20s (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

At least 48 hours. I wouldn't see the urgency even then, aside from the avoidance of uninformed accusations of suppression. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, wait 48 hours. This is evolving, not to mention Trump said in his press conference that he wondered about the leaking. The briefing was for him and Obama by the chiefs. Trump said he thought the leaks could be coming from his organization because it is so large, so he told no one he was having a briefing, not even his executive assistant. Then comes the leak. I think that might be worth a mention. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The above edit was perfectly fine. We can expect that some editors will vehemently oppose *ANY* mention of this situation in the lede, no matter how notable it is. I'm also unclear on what the "leak" is suppose to be. The media has had access to this report for months, since June at least. McCain got it and gave it to FBI in December. Etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you not read the quote from The New York Times above?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The edit was absolutely appropriate, accurate, and important to include. This is all over the news and people will be looking here for answers. To completely ignore it makes it seem like the article is out of date. We aren't reporting it as fact here, we are reporting that other third party new sources (the only thing we should care about) are reporting on it. People saying "there could be a scandal every day" are speculating. If that becomes the case we can consider what things we want to remove at that time. To preemptively suggest that we may have a lot more information to add to his page, so we shouldn't add it to his page now, is ridiculous. VegaDark (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
We should not add gossip to Wikipedia. Let's get serious. Unless you want to add the direct quote from The New York Times above in the body of the text, to spell it o.u.t. that this is malarkey?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
It is not "gossip" that every major news agency in the world is now reporting that "In January 2017, Trump was briefed by U.S. intelligence agencies on as yet unproven allegations that Russia had 'potentially compromising personal and financial information' about him." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with a 48-hour hold to let the details settle, but it seems almost certain that this must be included in some form. The narrative crafted by the Trump team is that nothing has been corroborated, but the BBC now says there are more sources. Also, news outlets and Wikipedia had no qualms about giving coverage to uncorroborated material from WikiLeaks about Hillary Clinton, so let's not have a double standard here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The details of the allegations are going mainstream. Just yesterday I saw a headline reading "Meryl Streep Takes Aim at Trump"! --Pete (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Pete, please do not drag Wikipedia into the gutter!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It's been more than 48 hours and this story is still a big thing, so that excuse is gone. To clarify, the proposed edit simply entails putting in a single sentence stating that Trump was briefed on the as yet unverified allegations, with no details of said allegations, and that trump has denied them. The consensus seems rather clear, but I would just like to make sure that I have read it right. Does the edit linked at the start of this section seem reasonable? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is time for a sentence in the "transition" section. The edit linked above is fine. There is a lot more that could be said, but not in this biography. It is being said in great detail in the 2016 United States election interference by Russia article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I have went ahead and added Twitbookspacetube's edit, since the consensus was for a 48 hour hold, and that has passed. If anyone feels like we need more discussion or consensus here, please feel free to revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree, all of the major, international, RS have been reporting on the Russia issue for 2 weeks now. It needs to be at least mentioned in the lede. Daaxix (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Guys - I'll suggest let BIO be BIOgones and this seems just WP:OFFTOPIC for the article. This article supposedly Trumps' bio, the major things about HIM and his life, not a dumping ground about every story that has Trump in it, coverage of his hairdo, etcetera and latest thing having to go into the lead. Please put this one towards the article specifically about it, or mention in the election article, and let this one focus more on biography things like his birth, early childhood, career, marriages, children and so forth. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Blackmail allegations

Latest comment: 7 years ago39 comments15 people in discussion

Buzzfeed ran an article containing a document that alleges (Redacted). This has been picked up by a number of other sources, such as Cosmopolitan. How long should we wait, and what level of reliable source should we require, to cover these allegations? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Just don't. WP:BLP restraint and all that… — JFG talk 01:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of deleting this suggestion and revdel'ing it. It's a massive BLP violation unless it is extremely well sourced - and in a search I didn't find anything approaching a Reliable Source. (And I hate to think what kind of advertising Google is going to show me because I searched this...) --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be a rerun of the Jane Doe issue. But the NY Times has mentioned it:[10]--Jack Upland (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
...and the Times (without going into details) describes the allegations as unverified and defamatory. 'Nuff said. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It goes into enough details if you read it closely.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's front page is ny times and Washington post. Some key facts that should be included, including that the FBI sought a FISA warrant on Trump's campaign, but were denied until October. This is extremely significant.Casprings (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Some of the specific allegations might be UNDUE per BLP, but the general story is all over the sources. [11], [12], [13], [14]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The general story (without the specifics) has been added to the article 2016 United States election interference by Russia#January 2017 classified document briefing. That seems an appropriate place for it. IMO it would be UNDUE to put it in this biographical article, unless it becomes a WHOLE lot bigger story than a lot of other stuff we have left out. We do need to keep in mind this is a BLP article, not a news stream about everything related to him. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Too soon, not enough corroboration. These are make allegations and most news outlets are treating them as rumors at the moment. Wait until we get solid, unequivocal confirmation. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As an FYI Donald Trump "compromised" claims has been created. I originally tagged it as G10 when it was under another name that was about the claims not mentioned in RS. It's since been moved the the G10 contested by an editor other than the creator. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We definitely shouldn't add anything about this until we get a very reliable source. A golden source, like the NYT or Washington Post.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@That man from Nantucket: Oh, so you mean these two? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: come now. NYT uses "unsubstantiated" in its title and WaPo uses "unconfirmed" in its title. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: I don't mean to say that we should include them because of these articles, just- it's a bit humorous that he asks for certain sources that were already linked. Possibly I wrote things poorly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to the allegations that aren't in those sources, that Trump was told "Do what we say, or you're in trouble"That man from Nantucket (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
We are going to have stories about Donald Trump every day for the next 4 to 8 years, assuming he lasts that long in the presidency. We have to determine significance otherwise the article will be unwieldy. TFD (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Non useful edits. Keep in mind this is a BLP and receives heavy traffic. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Will the trickles become a flood? Is there dirty linen to be aired? Will this be a permanent stain on the presidency? These questions will not be answered in the twinkling of an eye.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's clear that the whole Russia thing – not just this most recent information, but also Russia's interference in the election – needs to be mentioned in the lead of this article, per WP:LEAD ("The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"). Since he lost the election by 3 million votes but nevertheless was appointed president due to the odd political system of his country, his ties to Russia, Russia's election interference has completely dominated the conversation. Russia is the single most important thing that can be said about him after the election. --Tataral (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Since he lost the election by 3 million votes but nevertheless was appointed president". Some basic education for you: The Presidency is not "appointed" it is won; Trump won the election the only way it can/could be won (i.e. "Road to 270"); national popular vote is an interesting fact but beyond that has no bearing, it also cannot be "won"/"lost" since it is not a race/competition. IHTS (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You completely failed to address the point in my comment, namely Russia. Domestic idiosyncrasies in Trump's country simply don't count in an international context, and a claim that he "won" the election is certainly not true. --Tataral (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
News for you: not "claim" it's fact. And your "international perspective" has no place in the article or this Talk. IHTS (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Non useful edits. Keep in mind this is a BLP and receives heavy traffic. Objective3000 (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I guess the impression is that something stinks. Do we ignore the fact that the Emperor has wet his pants?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey, it seems he owns a hotel at Niagara Falls.That man from Nantucket (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
But what exactly flows from that?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

These edits should probably be deleted. Besides I hate puns. Objective3000 (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree on the former, disagree on the latter. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
If Trump had won the election as a result of Russian actions then it would belong in the lead. Instead, U.S. intelligence have a medium to high confidence that the Russians attempted to influence the election. Something that even if true had no effect on his election does not belong in the lead. TFD (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the reason this is being treated as a big/new story is not that the information supposedly influenced the election; I don't see that in the reporting. It's the concern that if Russia really does have damaging information about Trump, they could use it for blackmail or extortion - basically to influence Trump's actions as president. Also, I don't think anyone has suggested putting it in the lede. The question is whether to put it in the article at all. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, Tataral suggested putting something in the lede, and I concur. The question is how to phrase it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The issue is not really a narrow question of whether Russia succeeded in influencing the election. First of all, the "Russia" issue is much broader than that and also includes Trump's attitude to Russia, a sworn enemy of his own country, and his strange, cozy relationship with Putin. It also includes among other things Russia's cyber warfare and disinformation campaign against the US, which have now resulted in new, extensive sanctions against Russia by the US government. And now this most recent controversy over blackmail. And a number of other things. For Wikipedia's purposes, the key issue is that "Russia" has dominated the conversation in connection with Trump since the election; therefore "Russia" needs to be mentioned in the lead somehow, due to being a prominent controversy (or multiple related controversies) judging by its coverage in reliable sources. Even if Russia had no influence on the election at all (highly unlikely), the coverage of the issue in reliable sources would still be a highly prominent controversy; for us here at Wikipedia, the question is not whether it's "true" (original research/analysis), but how and to which extent it is covered by reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Not significant enough to include in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the topic. MelanieN, the blackmail is another story. Originally it was that the Russians hacked into the DNC to get the dirt on Trump so that they could understand him if he became president. We would have to show that it is important enough to put into the lead and it is rare for that to happen. We have to see whether it has traction or fades as the next story emerges. TFD (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The Russians hacked into the DNC (and also into Republican sources, despite Trump's denial) to gather any information they could use to mess with the election. But I saw another report (not suggesting it go into the article, just for clarity) that the Russians have been collecting information on Trump for years - to use, not in case he became president (who expected THAT?), but to use in business dealings with him. Some of the rumored-not-mentioned stuff they supposedly have is several years old. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The Russians hacked into the DNC (and also into Republican sources, despite Trump's denial)... please be accurate and precise, MelanieN. Are you talking about agents of the Russian intelligence services, or are you talking about cracking-groups located in the landmass of Russia somewheres, who may or may not be 'linked' informally to governmental agencies? Are you talking about the high-level Trump campaign staffers and high-level RNC staffers, or are you talking about some Republican-party-leaning bloggers and some state-level campaign staffers? There is also the distinction between the intent to gather information for unspecified purposes (cracking groups) and an alleged intent to gather information to mess with the election for geopolitical purposes (intel agencies). Please see [15] which has a good overview of the nuances here. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
As for the other matter, yes, I would be shocked if the major intelligence agencies were NOT collecting data on billionaires, simply for economic reasons. See for instance the Economic Espionage Act making it a felony in 1996. Forbes and Fortune also pay close attention, not to mention tabloids & paparazzi. (And the alleged clairvoyants![16]) But collecting economic data is different from collecting blackmail material, in some ways, although like the mafia, one can always blackmail to impact economic negotiations or to extract economic concessions, I guess. Not being a major national intelligence agency myself, hard to say. Are there sources you can point me towards, I am having little luck with my keyword searches? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The Russia issue (which includes, but which is not limited to, the Russian election interference which even has its own stand-alone article) is clearly more than significant enough to be included in the lead. In fact, it's required to be included in the lead per WP:LEAD. --Tataral (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tataral: Looks like your interpretation of WP policies is as fluent as your interpretation of US electoral laws.   — JFG talk 23:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Lede sentence

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

We had a long discussion above about how the lede sentence should be worded, and we are very close to consensus, but we haven't quite nailed it down - possibly because the discussion is so far up the page it is getting overlooked. I don't want to start a new thread at the bottom of the page, because there was a great deal of valuable discussion that led to the near-consensus that we have. Seeing that it is so close to inauguration day, I have proposed we leave the current lede as it is, and agree on what we want it to say when he is inaugurated. That gives us a week. Please chime in at that discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#Let's wrap this up. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

it is not close to consensus. Just read the section. Only thing close to consensus is American, Donald Trump, and date of birth. Discussion needs to be better summarized by someone, not inaccurately as above.Samswik (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I've always stated (and will again) keep the lead as simple as possible. Just use the leads of the other US Presidents bios as guidelines. PS - Yes, let's wait until after the inauguration, as the lead content will naturally change on that date. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a preference between the two options listed above? --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep, I oppose all three of them. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sexist language was overlooked but fixed. Former businessperson. Samswik (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted. Failed to cite a policy or guideline, and it complicates current discussion of the sentence in which we are trying hard to reach a consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Is everyone, really, ignoring all the criticism on Trump out there?

Why isn't there a section on criticism of him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.73.134 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Because criticism is supposed to be incorporated into the sections about what he has said or done that attracted criticism. There is no criticism section in Adolph Hitler either, why don't you ask about that? TFD (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It's important to not lend undue weight to that particular aspect; the article must be balanced and neutral. Also, this article is a biography of a living person; inappropriate unsourced or poorly sourced content is construed broadly. Linguisttalk|contribs 21:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Criticism is included throughout the article in the ideal sections, just not in a single section titled "Criticism". There are also many sub-articles that address his controversies and criticism. κατάσταση 21:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
What everyone else just said.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump and professional wrestling

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I came here to browse one of the RFCs, notice of which was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. While I may comment eventually, two other things came to mind. First off, the "Professional wrestling" section states "He has hosted two WrestleMania events in the Trump Plaza", with "Trump Plaza" linking to Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino. Those events (WM IV and V) actually took place at Boardwalk Hall, which they called "Trump Plaza" strictly for storyline purposes. Secondly, I've seen a pattern of edits come across my watchlist regarding not only Trump but Linda McMahon over many months in a number of articles. These edits, mostly deletionist in nature, suggest that we don't need to mention their professional wrestling careers and political careers in the same breath, irrespective of the existence of high-quality media sources which do precisely that. I believe this is due to the pro wrestling project, where most members push the POV that their favored cherry-picked list of sources are the only valid sources to use on those articles (in other words, in this universe, the NYT and WaPo aren't reliable sources as far as they're concerned). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: Thanks for your note about Boardwalk Hall, I have amended the article accordingly. I can't comment on your sourcing notes, but I would encourage you to raise the issue at the relevant article talk pages or at WP:RSN. — JFG talk 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Activities

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

Is this golf thing really biographically significant? I have my doubts. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's very trivial. I think it should be removed.- MrX 02:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Out with it per WP:DUE. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Ax it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  Done - [17] ―Mandruss ☎ 04:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I suspect it might be retaliation from r/The_Donald for the article about Schrödinger's Dossier. I won't be surprised if a lot more non-notable trivia gets added here before they calm down. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
That seemed badly written and sourced however...golf is a major part of his life. Eventually that may well be sourced and written better.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Mighty quick consensus-gathering on a non-earth-shaker (if it were to stay in for more than a few hours). No retaliation was involved by 'them', that I know of, or me. It was not mine originally but it was removed from the Business career of Donald Trump and I thought it still 'bore weight' as a personal detail so brought it here fairly intact. I can check the source and work on the wording. Any consensus on that? I see two votes for it so far. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Had the rules been more closely followed, the content would have been removed the second it was disputed. Either by Scjessey or by MrX, depending on whether Scjessey was actually disputing it. Per WP:ONUS, the burden would then have been on you to gain consensus for the content. So the content was given more time in the article than was required by the rules. Any consensus on a new proposal would depend on the details of that proposal, and I would suggest a new thread for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mandruss: I absolutely agree it doesn't belong in the article. The reason I didn't remove it myself is that I usually prefer to get the sense of other editors before doing anything non-trivial in article space. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Leave it out I know you are proposing this in good faith, and there is a source - one source - for it. However I can't recall any mention, through the obsessively-reported year-and-a-half campaign coverage, of him ever actually PLAYING golf, except as part of promotion of his golf courses. Maybe what he loves is owning golf courses. I don't think this is well enough sourced as being a major part of his life to include in his biography. Anyhow, in looking at articles about previous presidents who had a well-known favorite leisure activity, I don't see any mention of it in their article. Barack Obama loves to play basketball; I don't find that in his article. George H. W. Bush loved to sail; I don't find that in his article. Dwight D. Eisenhower loved golf so much he was often criticized for spending too much time on the course; I don't find a mention of golf in his article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest the consensus here is for exclusion, with the relative silence indicating this is non-controversial. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Neopalpa donaldtrumpi

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Would this recently described moth, named after Trump, warrant itself a place within this article? Seems like another honour to the list unless we only include notable ones. Sources: [18], original article Burklemore1 (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

We only include notable ones.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
A name given to a species is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
For the moth article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Burklemore1 - I think it only fits the topic of a Bio article if it has affected their life story in a significant way. So a mention would be big at the moth side, but think not here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It's mentioned in List of things named after Donald Trump. That's good enough. MB298 (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that list existed. If I had known I wouldn't have posted. Cheers for the answers everyone. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The species will probably exist long after Donald Trump is forgotten.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox religion

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I can't remove the religion from the infobox. According to this RFC WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes, religions in infoboxes should generally be omitted. Bluesphere 09:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no rule that it can't be there. There is no mention in Obama's, but there is mention of religion in George W. Bush's. Trump identifies as a life long Presbyterian, and apparently he goes to church. It should stay because for him it's relevant. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: Template:Infobox person doesn't list the religion parameter as required in infoboxes. Take a look [19] Bluesphere 17:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
While not required, that does not mean it cannot be there. As SW3 mentioned it was deemed important to him so it was included. PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Pretty certain this was discussed quite some time ago and the result was remove. His church says he is not an active member.[20] Objective3000 (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
He sometimes goes to the Collegiate Marble Church in New York. He was married there, maybe to Ivana or Marla Maples? Not sure. He was a big fan of Rev. Norman Vincent Peale who was the minister there. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes but, the infobox says Presbyterian and the Marble Collegiate Church is not Presbyterian. Religion is not a significant part of his life. Objective3000 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't mean he's not identifying as a Presbyterian. Marble Collegiate is non-denominational. Anybody can go. I believe one of the Nixon girls was married there with Norman Vincent Peale officiating. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
See the RfC at [21]. I believe the SNOW result was to remove religion except where consensus determines it is directly relevant to why the subject is notable (e.g. Norman Vincent Peale's article). Objective3000 (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)  
Okay, thanks. I'll take a look. I do think this is a trivia bit and doesn't have anything to do with the person, but seems more a preference of editors. Especially, if they are only willing to include it if it has some significance. That seems like a built in bias to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

When the article is unlocked, the religion parameter of the infobox should immediately be removed per global and local consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Electoral history

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I believe the section should include Donald Trump's performance during Reform Party presidential primaries, 2000.--Bedivere.cs (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If the Reform Party's presidential primaries are notable enough for an article, so should his 2000 presidential run. This is about Donald Trump, not the Presidency of Donald Trump I support NimbleNavigator (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Our article says: Trump sought the Reform Party's presidential nomination in 2000, but withdrew before voting began. I believe that's enough detail and there wouldn't be a significant "electoral result" to report about this fringe primary where he was a fringe candidate. The "electoral history" section is usually meant for career politicians; Trump wasn't a "serious" politician at the time. — JFG talk 02:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yawn. Too trivial for such a long article. Objective3000 (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
He wasn't a "serious candidate" this time either IIRC. The "fringe primary" was in the fringe state of New York. TFD (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Changes

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Residence (white house), occupation, Offical twitter (@potus) all need to be updated, along with official website (whitehouse.gov) Fbifriday (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, protection lessened, working on it myself Fbifriday (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion

The article currently says he will be the "oldest [...] to assume the presidency". That is not true. Reagan was older at his second inauguration. I haven't checked whether there are other examples.

I am not sure exactly how to re-word; maybe something like "will be the wealthiest to assume the presidency, and the oldest to assume it for the first time". Trovatore (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, so it looks like others have a different interpretation than I have of the meaning of the words, but can we at least agree that there is potential for confusion? How about an explanatory footnote on the word "oldest"? Could be very simple; just "oldest on first inauguration" or some such.
As for it being "too trivial", the problem is not whether it's trivial, but whether it's accurate and clearly stated. --Trovatore (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to explanatory footnotes using Template:Refn, and the article already has one such footnote. You will get pushback for using one in the lead, from editors who like a nice, clean lead free of citations, except for the one exceptional case of three consecutive. I have no such strong feelings about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

No longer Incumbent

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As it says in the heading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.1.111 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Incumbent means he still holds the office, which he does. —MartinZ02 (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
He's very incumbent, as of Friday last. See Talk:Donald Trump#"Incumbent" in infobox. Maybe you're thinking of "elect". ―Mandruss ☎ 13:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I see on the page on donald j trump that donald is assumed in office

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As i see the word assumed office on the donad j trump wikipedia page that just wrong he was sworn into Office on January the 20th 2017 what is in you all's mind. I am requesting that assume to be changed because its jusat not the correct word to say whenmr trump was sworn into office .

Look on CNN dont try to dump an bunch of negative comments on me . Inaugural crowd sizes: Trump v. Obama sbf1998✔ 03:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbf1998 (talk • contribs)

The definition of "assumed" is to "take or begin to have (power or responsibility)". "Assumed" and "sworn in" can be considered synonyms in this instance, so the article is indeed correct and there's nothing to fix or change. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump's official photo needs a touch up

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Trump's current official portrait is a little pixelated and not as high quality as Barack Obama's photo. Could anyone from the photo thingy touch it up? CatcherStorm talk 21:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not pixelated, but it is noisy when viewed at full size. Since it't an official photo, I don't think it should be altered.- MrX 22:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Order of "American businessman, television personality, and the 45th President..."

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Given the gravity of being POTUS, the line should read: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th President of the United States. Prior to his ascension to the Presidency, he was a businessman, television personality, and politician.Atrix20 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

See #Current consensuses and RfCs #11.- MrX 23:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Full name in lead sentence

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion
This omission has been fixed. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

I'm looking to get some clarification. The current article as of the last hour[22] says, "Donald Trump is...". This is a new change to very long standing wording. I propose it says, "Donald John Trump is...", and that the consensus at item 11 above is changed accordingly. This is not a proposed change to the page title, nor the infobox which reflects the page title, nor anything else. The matter has been confused by this RfC which appears to concentrate on the occupation and completely overlook that it omitted the full name. There's a few background reasons: It's his full name and was used at the inauguration. The lede isn't part of WP:COMMONNAME - Wikipedia articles normally state the full name in the lede if known. MOS:FULLNAME is the guideline. It will match previous presidents (Barack Hussein Obama II, George Walker Bush, William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton), as well as family (Ivanka Marie Trump, Eric Frederick Trump, etc), colleagues (Michael Richard "Mike" Pence), and others. Frankly it's a bit weird that it isn't there. Please indicate support or opposition below. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2017 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

As a person interested in current events, I was wondering if I could add a bit more about the 2016 election. If Hillary Clinton, Jill Stien, and other presidential candidates Wikipedias are blocked, I will also request to edit them, as I feel that one of the most important pieces of one's life is their political career. I am not registered with any political party, and my election view point is one solely interested in programs or policies that are beneficial to our country. While I do not applaud Donald Trump's statements about women, I will not give my personal opinion about Mr. Trump, now Mr. President. What I will talk abut are the vigorous debates, the heated race for the presidency, and his come-from-behind victory. It is my hope that you will accept my request, so that anyone wanting to learn more about our 45th president will have a larger, and more reliable, rescource.Thank You, Benje (Mr. Choucroun)Benjec (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You may have interpreted "edit request" to mean "request for permission to edit". See Wikipedia:Edit requests. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Controversies section

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

People far less controversial have sections dedicated to their controversies. Considering how many times "controvers" shows up in the text of this page, it should have one too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J2kun (talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You addressed yourself why there isnt a specidic section on controversy: Its addressed throughout the article. Instead of creating a seperate heading for controversy, its better to have the controversy in each section, for better flow of reading. 66.87.114.244 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)(fbifriday on the mobile app, not signed in)
"Controversy" sections should be avoided. It's best to present controversies more naturally, as this article does. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@J2kun: Such sections are disfavored as per WP:CRITS. Vrrajkum (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Donald Trump/Archive 44
Personal details
Political partyRepublican (1987–99, 2009–11, 2012-present)

I think the dates when Trump was a Republican should be combined into one entry next to his current party. It seems arbitrary to list Republican twice in both "political party" and "other political affiliations". Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  Done - Simplexity22 (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Remove {{pp-dispute}}, add {{pp-move-indef}} at the top. 121.202.139.198 (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Even if we did that, it wouldn't change the page protection. It would just fail to label the protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It is there to prevent edit wars and improper or disruptive edits. If you will like to make a significant change, please discuss it. If it is minor and is not controversial, then you can request an edit to be made. There are many users present here. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The following link leads nowhere:

http://www.lcv.org/assets/docs/presidential-candidates-on.pdf "In Their Own Words: 2016 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change" (PDF). Retrieved July 12, 2016.

Can we find a replacement link? Greggydude (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Found and fixed.. You can almost always find a replacement link using the Wayback Machine. In this case, it's available here. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The doc is now at https://www.lcv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/presidential-candidates-on-climate-change.pdf on the lcv site. However, I had to look through the source of the site to find it, and I'm not certain it is proper to link directly. Objective3000 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably best left with the Wayback link, since it won't die. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't his status as president be mentioned first?

Something to the effect of "Donald Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States, as well as a businessman..."

Listing his status as president last just seems...weird.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_44&oldid=1147974434"