Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Archive 75

Undue addition

Tataral This seems way too much. Just a short sentence talking about "international condemnation" should be enough - there doesn't need to be so much on it on this very very high level article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. We certainly need to mention the condemnation of his actions by the UN, and the current version of it which consists of a single sentence is entirely appropriate, WP:DUE and as concise as it gets. This is an extremely high profile issue that receives worldwide coverage, and politically speaking it could be said to be his main accomplishment so far (wading into the Middle East conflict and being universally condemned by the world's countries for his actions), considering that he hasn't really accomplished much else domestically or internationally. The idea that this single sentence about the expression of the opinion of the entire world community, from a "very very high level" body that dwarfs any US body or politician in importance, is somehow "undue" in this lengthy article, which covers Trump's fringe opinions on this or that in extreme detail, is quite preposterous. --Tataral (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Uhm no. The withdrawal of the paris climate also got a lot of condemnation. I think the quotes can be summarized, and details removed. How much would people care one year from now is what matters. Atleast shorten roughly to The move was condemned in a resolution by a large majority of the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 2017; the resolution said that the decision had no legal effect and must be rescinded, and called "upon all States" to not establish diplomatic missions in Jerusalem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Way to detailed for his main BLP. I agree with Galobtter, his version might work. It is a relatively minor issue over all. PackMecEng (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

UN resolutions are a dime a dozen. Should be even shorter - something along the lines of modifying to On December 6, 2017, Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Trump added that he would initiate the process of establishing a new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem. Palestinian and world leaders objected to move, and on the 21 December 2017 a United Nations General Assembly resolution condemned the move. - and even this gives the UN undue weight.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

We can certainly discuss alternative ways to phrase this exactly, but "a resolution condemned the move" is nowhere near sufficient and says absolutely nothing about what the resolution actually said. The United Nations General Assembly convened a special session just to declare as illegal and null and void everything Trump did in relation to Jerusalem. Trump is a person that no person who counted, even in the US would even take seriously a year ago, so that in itself is quite noteworthy. The resolution, based on its coverage in reliable sources, clearly needs to be covered adequately in this article as a major diplomatic setback for the United States under Trump and a sign of its near total isolation internationally, and as the very conclusion of his first disastrous year in power. This isn't Trump's website, it's a global encyclopedia, and Trump's views on this and other issues constitute minority, fringe, most would say extremist views in the world, as seen from the fact that no countries other than the US, Israel and a few micronations voted for Trump's position . --Tataral (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

How is this a setback for the US? The US, even under Obama, doesn't really care what the UN thinks or does. Again, you need to stop trying to push your POV. Wikipedia is not a forum. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Um, it's described as a major diplomatic setback or in similar terms by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. As far as POV is concerned, you should look yourself in the mirror. Whether Trump or people like him "care" about what the UN or the world thinks is irrelevant; Wikipedia is based on the coverage in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not really. A UN resolution in the general assembly against the US+Israel is quite the par for the past 50 years or so. The question isn't if it will pass but how many absences, abstentions, and nays will be cast - vs. the large majority. They even have yearly resolutions on these things (were Israel+US routinely loses). This was completely expected - and the sort of thing that will be forgotten about next week. WP:ROUTINE for the UN/Israel-US.Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the article about Trump and the first time the UN has devoted a resolution and a special session to anything he has done. In any event reliable sources universally describe this as highly significant and a major international setback for Trump and the US. --Tataral (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources are repeating The Palestinians' UN envoy, Riyad Mansour, described the result as a “massive setback”. No one neutral is presenting this is a setback - as it was 99.999999999% expected - prior to Trump making the declaration. WP:ROUTINE.Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that a great deal of text is not warranted; considering that just prior to the vote Trump threatened to stop paying UN dues and Haley and Trump threatened countries before the vote, I don’t think you could call this vote routine. O3000 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not the narrative found in mainstream reliable sources, for example in the US' own leading newspaper, which notes that "the decisive rejection" of Trump's position "was a setback for a president who is still looking for a major foreign achievement after nearly a year on the job."[1] As for whether Trump expected it, it doesn't really matter and no one seems to believe that, given that he very aggressively tried and failed (spectacularly) to threaten (in a very primitive way) other countries to oppose the resolution. --Tataral (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Too recent to mention. Time will tell if this was routine or leads to something significant. In any case, that looks undue for the Trump bio; a logical destination would be Foreign policy of the Trump administration. — JFG ^talk 21:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I shortened things a bit;[2] hope this helps. — JFG ^talk 22:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

If we use only one quote from the resolution, it would be more natural to use the quote that addressed the primary and underlying issue, the recognition question itself (the "no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council" part) rather than the quote addressing a secondary issue, the location of diplomatic missions. (Sources, even sources like Fox News[3], have emphasized the "null and void" part). --Tataral (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a "and the sky is blue" kind of situation with regards to the UN and Israel given the UN's relationship and resolution history with them. With the UN passing a resolution that has no force behind and the US and Israel ignoring it. The shortened version JFG added is more than sufficient to describe the situation. PackMecEng (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I think JFG's version is fine; a sentence on the topic is necessary but I don't see a need to explain more in this article. The various sub-pages can expand on this further. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone agree

With me on this edit? I had to self-revert it coz of 1rr, but if someone else agrees, they can make the edit.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Mostly. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The Electoral College numbers are important, I think. It's how he likes to justify his win as "the biggest in the history of America, maybe of the world," or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Eh he talks a lot of stuff, that doesn't mean it becomes important enough for the lead. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The numbers are important. Trump lost the popular vote, so the details of his Electoral College vote are significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead implies that he got more electoral votes, given that he won the election. Why give detailed electoral vote numbers in the lead if we don’t give detailed popular vote numbers in the lead? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The fact that he won the election is the most important thing. I would not only support the removal of the numbers of the numbers of electoral votes but also the month and date as 2016 is enough information for the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of having the popular vote numbers too. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If I remember correctly from recent news no previous president who won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote has ever won re-election. If that's true, then I think highlighting the information in this way would make sense. John Carter (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

We already highlight in the lead that he didn’t get the most popular votes. That seems like plenty of emphasis in the lead already. If we include all the numbers, then of course we’d also have to include that Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote either. All of that is too much detail for the lead, and so I support not including any vote tallies in the lead. BTW, GW Bush won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote to Gore, and then won re-election. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course What? Not really. Anyway W didn't win in the electoral vote, he won in court. The two events are not alike. It's comparing grapefruits with coconuts. SPECIFICO talk 04:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

DJT electoral college victory

Why is reference to the fact of DJT's electoral college victory (the ultimate factor controlling the election result) now removed when the reference to the fact of DJT's popular vote loss remains? Please excuse me for being new here.

I was just going through some research and ran into this particular revision that popped out to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=816081659

Who am I to say, but, respectfully, maybe there's an overall better way to present the info, maybe taking some compromise, maybe getting closer to a win-win for objectivity and neutrality, improving the article for the sake of keeping up Wikipedia's reputation?

To restate:

Why is reference to the fact of DJT's electoral college victory (the ultimate factor controlling the election result) now removed when the reference to the fact of DJT's popular vote loss remains... especially given that the explanation provided for the removal is "electoral vote margin doesn't matter that much?"

Who said it's about the electoral college vote margin (emphasis on margin)?

It's about keeping the presentation of information balanced.

If there's going to be a reference to the popular vote loss, then how about a reference to the electoral college win (more than "general election")?

As an overall compromise (that actually makes the overall passage work better, as per Wikipedia formatting), how about inserting a Wiki-linked reference to "United States presidential election, 2016" where it shows the election results, both electoral college vote and popular vote?

Here's a proposed rewording of the passage:

. . . . . . . . . .

"Trump won the 2016 United States presidential election against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton."

. . . . . . . . . .

This way, it makes up for the imbalance of referencing the popular vote loss without referencing the electoral college win, and, as a bonus, adds a Wiki-link to the actual 2016 U.S. presidential election page, for info on the election, including the election results of both the electoral college and the popular vote by the numbers (as per the info box):

Electoral vote: 304 - 227

Popular vote: 62,984,825 - 65,853,516

. . . . . . . . . .

After all, where is there any reference at all of the election, itself, within the DJT article to the Wikipedia article on the same (especially, within close contextual proximity)?

Go ahead and keep the reference afterward to DJT losing the popular vote in the DJT article if you like.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and, again, please excuse me for being new here (if you like, please feel free to provide me with tips and constructive criticism for my future reference).

If you get the point I'm making here and you see it's a good idea to revise the wording and so on but prefer a variation on my proposed rewording, I'll go in good faith you'll make good on it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.253.205 (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS covered the fact that he lost the popular vote while winning the election more than the electoral vote count. Your wording is interseting but there's link to the election earlier in the paragraph and it doesn't make sense to repeat "2016 presidential". Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead already includes this link: “2016 presidential race”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

. . . . . . . . . .

I checked to see a way to add this below the latest responses and struck out, being new to this here, so please excuse me for that.

Thank you for the feedback and explanation. I think I may be understanding things now (and may be learning a lesson, getting some insight, into writing articles).

So even though the beginning of the passage says "He [DJT] entered the 2016 presidential race (emphasis on "2016 presidential race")..." the Wiki-link goes to the article "United States presidential election."

Is this to show, therefore, it's alright to use a phrase ("presidential race") similar to a Wiki-linked article name ("presidential election") for the good of getting the phrasing to work in context, just so long as it's close enough, meaning the wording is similar enough to essentially mean the same thing?

If so, is there an expression for that sort of "Wiki-wordsmithing?"

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.253.205 (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The un-disputed fact that Donald Trump is President demonstrates that he won the electoral college. If described in a section where word-count is limited, there's no need to mention that fact; "won the presidency" implies it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Improving the lead

Currently there are 5 paragraphs in the lead. Paragraph 4 is entirely about the "domestic policy" of Trump's presidency, mainly the things he's done or attempted to do that upset Democrats. Why were these certain things chosen for inclusion? The last paragraph (just one line) is about the dismissal of Comey and investigation into alleged collusion with Russia. How is this relevant? A proper lead for Donald Trump would be 3/4 devoted to his life before politics, with the final 1/4 about his presidency. He's been President for only one year, yet proportionally more of the lead is devoted to his presidency than the articles for the Bushes, Obama, and Reagan. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Paragraph 4 is about domestic and foreign policy 2. The final paragraph, maybe more, about 1/3 of the lead, is about the presidency, (half the lead is about presidency for Obama..) the paragraph before is about the campaign. Could expand on his business career Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Last time there was a major collective rewrite effort, the structure of the lead was agreed as follows:

1. Who is Trump in brief
2. Life and business career
3. Presidential campaign and election
4. Top events of presidency to date

Since then, a few more events have gained prominence and others have faded away; section 4 is now well-balanced with half on domestic policy and half on foreign policy. The Mueller investigation was split into a separate paragraph because it is orthogonal to the administration's policies; it has received so much political and media attention that it is undoubtedly lede-worthy. Like it or not, Trump's recent election and the start of his presidency are already more impactful than his whole career in real estate and entertainment. Perhaps towards the end of 2018 the campaign section will fade away and be replaced by more content about the presidency. I don't think that sections 1 and 2 would benefit from being expanded. Open to suggestions, of course. What would you emphasize differently? — JFG ^talk 16:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel like we're slightly glossing over the real estate career, with only a short sentence - compare the amount we give to his real estate career in the body to the lead. Apart from that, yeah there isn't too much of a problem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

How to create and manage a good lead section -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the purpose of a lead is to summarize the content of the article Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The split between "domestic policy" and "foreign policy" is (IMO) primarily for editorial reasons. Content will be added and removed to those sections as events occur throughout Trump's presidency, but they should stay approximately equal weight in the lead of this biography. The "Russia-gate" stuff is, in my opinion, excessive, but I'm trying to minimize my on-wiki comments on it as there isn't a consensus to remove it from the lead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Tax reform in lead

Rreagan007 I'd say it is inaccurate to say it just cut rates without mentioning, say, that it will increase tax rates on certain income groups after 2027. That it is unpopular is another thing that might go in the lead. The previous version is vaguely better I think. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Diff (I think). ―Mandruss ☎ 05:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup, forgot to put it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, it being unpopular is considered for the lead. Is it possible to just add information without hamfisting a POV into everything. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

What part of documenting the "sum total of human knowledge" (Jimbo Wales) don't you understand? We document POV too, especially significant ones like this, and even more so because the PRESIDENT lies about it. That makes it very notable and worthy of inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate the hubris in your response there, I wouldn't doubt the standards of "very notable" are an incredibly low bar for your inclusions to reach. You don't see other Presidents' having their legislative achievements in their lead accompanied by "BTW nobody liked them", otherwise the Patriot Act in George W. Bush's lead is clearly missing something. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump only had an interest in the Presidency

RFG's revision that Trump was interested in politics in general is not supported by the source article from the NYT. His interest was solely in the Presidency, even back in 1987. He never showed any interest in any other position in government nor in politics in general. This small edit by RFG should be reverted.

Hilltrot (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

As there is no user RFG, we'll assume you mean JFG. Also it would help if you provided a diff of the edit in question. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I would assume this is the diff, correct? SkyWarrior 04:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes that would be it.Hilltrot (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Running for office is not the only way to be involved in politics, particularly when you have money. In fact that is shown in that very paragraph. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I sleep. That doesn't mean I have an interest in sleeping. I eat. That doesn't mean I have an interest in food. Self-promotion doesn't mean one has an interest in politics. Once again, as I said before, JFG's revision that Trump was interested in politics in general is not supported by the source article from the NYT nor from the Washington Post. What was originally there is supported by the source article. I thought WP:VERIFY and WP:PROVEIT still applied. Or does it not apply to some people who are allowed to make up stuff as they go along? Hilltrot (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hilltrot makes good points. The original was fine. This change created a problem. Reversion would solve that problem. The source clearly describes candidacy for the presidency, not just a general interest in politics. Trump does nothing half way, and only the presidency would give him sufficient power to turn the world into his personal piggy bank. He would not be interested in anything less. He sees politics as a means to increase his personal power, not as specific policies and laws to better the world and country for citizens. So far he's proving this to be true. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, find a different/second reliable source. Both of you appear to be assuming that one source tells the whole story, simply because it's the one we currently cite. And personal viewpoints about Trump have no place in the discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, since it's unlike JFG not to defend his edits, I'm going to assume that he's distracted by holidays or other life, so I'm pinging him. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I’m OK with JfG’s edit. I remember the ads and I agree with the NYT article. But, I don’t like adding concepts like “vague hint of candidacy” to a WP article about a living person. If it’s vague, it’s subject to interpretation. Let’s save this kind of analysis for historians, after the fact, unless we can find a preponderance of such articles in RS. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

But JFG's edit is not supported by the source. It's OR, plain and simple. We must follow the source, and it clearly talks about "candidacy". That's no surprise. Trump has done that many times throughout the years. I don't see why it's not a given to just revert. That should be a no brainer, and a restoration of JFG's edit would need some policy-based reason which justifies using a source, but stating something not in the source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. It was also OR to say "first". -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Clinton email probe re-opened in July 2016

This BLP says, "In early July, Clinton's lead narrowed in national polling averages following the FBI's re-opening of its investigation into her ongoing email controversy." Shouldn't that say "State Department" instead of FBI? The FBI reopened its investigation in October 2016.

References

Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you are correct, after reading the source. Profane Username (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct should be added to lead, as there have been calls for resignation by many U.S. senators

Add new sentence to lead: "Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by 19 women. Polls show most Americans believe the allegations are true. At least 7 U.S. Senators have called on Trump to resign over the allegations. "

We've talked about this many times. See the discussion above. Plus, not all accusations were rape. MB298 (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

So you've talked about before. And? The above discussion is inconclusive. I've proposed specific text, with specific references. A simple support or oppose would be more helpful than noting "we've talked about this before" without even making clear what the outcome of the prior discussion was (as far as I can tell, there was no clear outcome.)Profane Username (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support* As the nominator. Clearly notable information. Generally, most articles regarding alleged sexual harassers include such a mention.. Scrupulously well-referenced.Profane Username (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

There is already a discussion above. You are welcome to participate. MB298 (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. I did add my proposal to the discussion above, but I'm having a little trouble figuring out where it is supposed to go. Might one of you two be able to help me figure out where it should be added? Profane Username (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Since I think my proposed text is now in the correct place, can someone close this discussion?Profane Username (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Least popular President in history of modern opinion polling?

Suggested text to add from other article:

"Presidential approval ratings have revealed Trump to be the least popular US president in the history of modern opinion polling as of the first eleven months of the term."

I suggest this as I was checking above whether other presidential articles include vote counts, and noticed they generally include approval ratings in the lead; why not add this info regarding Trump's historic unpopularity?

References

Profane Username (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s true that the Barack Obama BLP gives his popularity upon leaving office, but Trump has not left office yet (as much as some people eagerly await that event). The Obama lead did not keep a running score of popularity, see, e.g., what that lead looked like in 2014. That’s the way it oughta be, IMHO, because popularity fluctuates whereas the stuff in a lead should generally have some permanence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a fair point, but I believe it is also notable that Trump has a record-low approval rating at the end of his 1st year, even if his low approval rating should later rise (a la Bill Clinton, who was also extremely unpopular in his first term, though not as unpopular as Trump.) Trump's unpopularity has also been very consistent. Bear in mind as well that it is extremely plausible that Trump should be the least popular President ever, since he lost the popular vote by a greater margin than any other election in history (save one very old, strange election with 3rd party candidates), and has accomplished virtually nothing as president, and what little he has accomplished has been nearly universally criticized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profane Username (talk • contribs) 07:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This BLP already says, “Presidential approval ratings for Trump have revealed him to be the least popular U.S. President in the history of modern opinion polling as of the first ten months of the term”. That seems adequate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. You're right. I missed that as it's buried down pretty low. I guess the question remains as to whether Trump's unpopularity should be given higher mention in the article, if anyone else wants to offer a view. Profane Username (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It is hard to decide what should be given more prominence. Certainly the historically low approval, and historically high disapproval, are both prominently mentioned in large numbers of stories discussing Trump. It is very often one of the first things mentioned, whereas we have it as one of the last. In the context of someone who ran on a populist platform, this is a pretty big deal: a substantial proportion of Trump voters almost immediately suffered buyer's regret, and the peak of Trump's approval rating is 46%, the lowest of any President since modern polling began. The graphs at United States presidential approval rating show graphically why this is generally considered significant. No modern president has been this consistently unpopular for this long, this early in their tenure. The normal curve starts with significant net approval and decays over time, with peaks and troughs along the way. Trump dropped to a point of support solely from the entrenched Republican base and has never risen out of it. Virtually nobody other than MAGA types approve of him, and that is a significant departure from normal politics. W, for example, had broad bipartisan approval, declining to broad bipartisan disapproval as the Iraq war turned toxic. Trump has essentially zero support other than from his base, with any bipartisan support evaporating within weeks of his taking office. So it is actually rather a significant thing, a fact reflected in numerous articles reviewing 2017. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump awarded prestigious 'Lie of the Year' Award from Politifact, in landslide victory

Trump awarded lie of the year award for his comments that "Russia is a made-up story" (I think this is the 3rd year in a row Trump has won; he at least won in 2015 and 2017.) I think this is notable.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/12/2017-lie-year-readers-poll-results/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/12/2017-lie-year-russian-election-interference-made-s/ http://thehill.com/homenews/media/366388-politifact-editor-we-chose-trumps-lie-of-the-year-because-of-how-often-he https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2015/12/22/trump-politicfact-fox-and-friends-lie-of-the-year/77745126/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profane Username (talk • contribs) 03:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn’t sound prestigious to me. On December 18, CNN reported “the congressional committees have not yet determined whether there is evidence the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.“ Likewise, the Mueller probe has not answered that question either. For Trump to say, basically, “I’m innocent” may turn out to be the lie of the year or maybe the decade, but reliable sources do not yet say so in any kind of clear way. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit deal, but not sure it warrants inclusions. That said, AYW, the lie is that the Russia issue is "made up". Not the same as collusion. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The first link above says this is the lie of the year: “This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won." That’s about collusion, it seems. Or maybe it’s just too vague to figure out. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• It has relevance in the context of the mountain of evidence of Trump's contempt for truth. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We already do mention that he has said many false statements; better to expand on that than adding this relatively minor thing. Maybe add to the body first.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, in the context of the discussion of his systematic disregard for truth, it is significant, but I agree: only there. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

|}

Trump lost popular vote by 3 million votes-- Why is this not in the lead?

How is it not notable that Trump received 3 million fewer votes than Clinton? I'd love to hear. Profane Username (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The line "...and the fifth to have won the election despite getting less of the popular vote" covers this. TheValeyard (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but poorly and obliquely. Why not give the numbers, 2.9 million votes and 2.1 percent? Are we trying to hide something and run cover for the President here? Profane Username (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer to give the actual percentages that Clinton and Trump respectively won: 48.2 and 46.1 (which also shows neither won a majority), and if we provide numbers about the popular vote, then we must provide numbers about the electoral vote, because that's the one that really counts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy with the above suggestion of saying Clinton received 48.2 percent and Trump 46.1 percent. This is a good suggestion.Profane Username (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We already point out he received fewer votes. I don't think the additional information is that helpful. It makes it sound huge when it was only 2.1% of the vote. TFD (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So let's say 2.1 percent, if you think 3 million is misleading. I would give both pieces of information, personally, but I'd be happy with just giving the percentages. There is no legitimate argument for not giving the information, as if we're hiding something. Profane Username (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

How about the electoral vote numbers? They mattered more. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with including the electoral vote numbers and the popular vote numbers. Profane Username (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That’s a lot of numbers, and out of the norm for President BLPs, but maybe we should do things differently. We ought to keep the lead as-is, or include all those numbers. I hope you see that we’re legitimately concerned about cluttering up the lead with numbers, not trying to hide anything. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was mainly offering to concede the electoral college thing as a compromise. In my view, I don't think it really clutters that much to say that "Trump lost the popular vote by a margin of 2.1 percent, but won the electoral college by X" rather than "Trump lost the popular vote." Perhaps we should also include something on Trump's approval rating? I notice that other presidential leads include such information, when I was checking your assertion that other leads don't include the vote count. (see my proposal below.)Profane Username (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, the popular vote means nothing. He won the popular vote in each state in which he received the electoral votes. One can argue that in many states people don't bother voting because their state is solidly one color or the other, which does skew the popular vote. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"The popular vote means nothing." This is such obvious nonsense that I will assume good faith by assuming you didn't mean to say something so ostentatiously wrongheaded. "One can argue that in many states people don't bother voting because their state is solidly one color or the other, which does skew the popular vote." One can argue lots of things that are wrong. Your posit has absolutely no proof in its favor. The facts are the facts: Trump won more states, but Clinton won the popular vote, by a substantial margin of 2 percent. You can hypothesize as to why this occurred, but your hypotheses are pointless if you don't have sources to back them up. Profane Username (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is it obvious nonsense? The popular vote does indeed mean nothing. Where in the US Constitution does it mention popular vote? The only vote that matters is the Electoral College vote, and in today's world, that is the outcome of each state's popular vote. The national popular vote is a meaningless statistic, whether you want to be nasty or not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It is obviously meaningful who received more votes, whether or not we award victory to the electoral college winner. 99 percent of countries on Earth go by who received more votes, and even in the United States, the winner of the popular vote has won 95 percent of the time. And if you want to go by the constitution, the constitution does not even envision the people voting for the President at all, but that the electoral college would just decide amongst themselves, so let's please not get into that. Whether or not you support the electoral college, please don't tell me that the popular vote has "no meaning." Profane Username (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's TRIVIA, and I don't know why you keep missing the part where I said the popular vote of each individual state is what matters in the allocation of the electoral vote. But a national popular vote is trivia and not needed to go into more detail. It is really irrelevant how 99% of the countries on Earth operate, the United States is a federal republic and has its own mechanism of voting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not Trivia that Trump received far fewer votes than Clinton. Yes, I understand that he "won the popular vote in more states than did Clinton", but that doesn't mean that his loss of the overall popular vote is not meaningful. Again, if you consider all citizens of this nation equal, you should consider it meaningful. Even if, as is apparent, you believe it is fair for some to have their votes counted more than others, the popular vote is meaningful and not trivia because it is regarded as such by many reliable sources. Why is the popular so widely reported if it is merely trivia? To the extent that one thinks that all citizens deserve an equal vote, the popular vote is not, and will never be, trivia. Profane Username (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's TRIVIA because it means absolutely nothing. It's a lot easier for the media to discuss the popular vote than to go into the nuance of the electoral vote, but other than a nice blurb in the news, the popular vote is just that, a piece of trivia. That is the definition of trivia, it's a nice number that changes nothing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Just because something doesn't determine the outcome doesn't entail that it "means absolutely nothing" or is "trivia." You know, the popular vote is also reported in the 95 percent of elections where the popular vote winner actually wins. I must say that I am at a loss as to your definition of "trivia" here, which you take to be self-evident. Under any reasonable definition of trivia, the popular vote of a Presidential election is not it. Profane Username (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

When we get bogged down in meaningless details, the next detail would be that he lost California by 5 million votes which would mean he won the popular vote in other 49 states by 2 a net million votes. Both of those stats mean nothing in the end though but it highlights why there is an Electoral College and not just the king/queen of California/New York/Texas. --DHeyward (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not a "meaningless detail" that Clinton received more votes than Trump. This "King-Queen of California/New York/Texas" argument is entirely misguided. What you are effectively arguing is that because you live in Wyoming, your vote should be weighted 3 times as much as a person who lives in California/New York/Texas. Further, even if someone accepted your dubious normative argument, it is a matter of plain fact that Clinton received 3 million more votes, and that this is notable. It is not "notable" to start hypothesizing about what would have happened if you took out the most populous state of the Union. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. It is not a hypothesis or a speculation that Clinton received more votes: it is verifiable, encyclopedic fact, unlike the speculative claims you are making. Profane Username (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing he said is speculative. [4], and one can very well argue that if you include the details of the popular vote, it should indeed be broken out that outside of California he had a net gain in the vote. It does appear that you might not be fully informed in the whole system of voting in the US. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You can't just say "outside California" as if California doesn't matter! I'm at a loss here. California is 15-20 percent of the entire country. We could lop off 20 percent of Trump's votes and get the same outcome. What is your point? It is speculation to talk about "what the popular vote would have been without a state that exists". Look up what speculation means since you want to engage in semantics. Also, you do realize that your link supports my argument, right? It says that 1 Wyoming voter counts 4 times as much as 1 California voter. Which is exactly what I was saying. Thanks for the support. (PS: Au contraire, it appears that I'm much more informed than you on this topic, since you send me links that you think support your argument, but support mine.) Profane Username (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please leave your opinions about other editors out of this discussion. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User: Mandruss I've retracted my comment pointing out that I appear to be better informed on the topic than he does. That being said, my comment was merely in response to his comment that I might not be fully informed on the voting system in the U.S. Hence, in fairness, if you are going to criticize my response, you should ask him to leave his own opinions about me out of the discussion, since I would not have needed to rebut his opinions with my own if he hadn't made his own opinions about me an issue to begin with. Profane Username (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

He lost the popular vote. Yes, the distribution of population around the US runs way ahead of the political system's ability to adapt. It is bizarre to me that each California Senator represents nearly seventy times as many people as each Wyoming Senator. We can speculate on what would happen if you took California out of the equation. Equally, we can speculate on what would happen f you took Russia out of the equation. Did Russia contribute to his popular vote margin more or less than California did? We will probably never know. According to most of the analysis I have read, it is extremely unlikely that he would be President had Russia not interfered in the election. And if he had been up against almost anybody but Hillary, he would also probably have lost. But we are where we are. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note - Please keep the discussion civil, I know this is a contentious topic and appreciate everyone's willingness to engage in discussion. I have spoken to some of the editors involved and the issues I have seen have been addressed but please be mindful as you discuss moving forward. Thank you, Mifter (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Gorsuch / judges - domestic policy paragraph

Every President nominates "many federal judges." Is it really necessary to say this?

A related question is whether we should list Gorsuch. There was a discussion earlier that boiled down to, "Trump hasn't done much else, and this has at least received media coverage." That may be true, but I'm looking at Barack Obama, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan, and we don't say anything about the Supreme Court in the lead for any of them, let alone name names. The standards we've used for other Presidents should be the standards we use here. Nick845 (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Not really. The standard we use is what reliable sources consider notable, and they consider his nomination to be one of his only achievements. Other presidents have been there for much longer (4-8) years and have done more. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregator. There are times we’ll have to use our independent judgment. Ensuring consistency in describing actions that every President takes, and thereby ensuring that we don’t give undue leeway to some over others, is a perfectly valid exercise of that judgment.

This is Barack Obama’s page as of June 2010; he had made two SCOTUS appointments by then. They’re nowhere to be found. If your response is, “Well, that’s because the media didn’t bother putting those among his most important accomplishments since he did much else,” my answer would be: 1) Is there proof of that? 2) See above. Media coverage is important, but there are other things that matter. Consistency would be one.

Of course, all of this is for Gorsuch. Non-SCOTUS judicial appointments shouldn’t be in the lead, period. I don’t think anyone here would accept that Trump’s appointments to administrative agencies or even the Federal Reserve are lead-worthy. So why would lower court judges count? Nick845 (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Why are there no citations (sources) in the lead?

I noticed that no information in the lead of Donald Trump's article is sourced. The sources don't begin until "Family and personal life." I'm thinking of adding a sentence to the lead. Is it OK for me to source the information, or should I continue with the current "no citation" policy for the lead in this article? Anthony22 (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE. MB298 (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The account (User:Profane Username) that started these sections has been blocked on suspicion of being a sock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir of Wikipedia (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2018

There is a big fuck trump image when logged out. User should be banned and changed removed. Pirionxii (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pirionxii: What image? I'm not following you. Jim1138 (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jim1138: https://i.imgur.com/LZc08z9.jpg Pirionxii (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pirionxii: That is a screen capture of an old page. Someone probably vandalized the page and immediately captured that image. That's probably why the page is protected now. Happens way too often, but it appears corrected (for the moment). No need to worry about it unless you see it on the current version of Donald Trump. I am marking the request as answered. Cheers 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I took the picture 8 minutes ago, not anyone else. I only see it when not logged in (I'm using incognito mode to cap it) - and I do still see it. Pirionxii (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I can confirm the image is still there. If you can't see it try using incognito mode as Pirionxii suggests. The strange thing is that it does not show up in the wiki source for the page, yet is in the rendered HTML source. 2003:CB:33CF:6599:946:DB9A:4599:6DA0 (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it logged in or out. That includes Firefox's "private window" mode which I assume is equivalent to incog. What happens if you click on the image? If you get a Wikipedia file page, what is the filename? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: It's this Wikimedia image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fuck_Trump._March_5_Daily_Chalkupy_(32427982054).jpg 2003:CB:33CF:6599:946:DB9A:4599:6DA0 (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggest you take it to WP:VPT. More technical eyes there. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, will do. I just made this archive.is replica of the page, you should be able to see the offending image there: https://archive.fo/TLot3 2003:CB:33CF:6599:946:DB9A:4599:6DA0 (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It showed up for me on chrome incognito. I think I've fixed it by purging the page. Some template must've been changed, and then fixed back I think. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Can confirm it looks fixed now: https://archive.fo/hrSFE. Thanks @Galobtter:. New to WP, is it possible to track down which template this was so that the offending user can be dealt with?

I found it, looks like user was already banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sidebar_person&action=edit&oldid=818055052, thanks!Pirionxii (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pirionxii: Thanks for the detective work! I've changed this request back to answered. 2003:CB:33CF:6599:946:DB9A:4599:6DA0 (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pirionxii: The image has vanished from Firefox while logged out. The template revert seems to have peculated down. Thanks for your work! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The revert happened 3 hours ago, yet it only got fixed when I purged it (thus showing the fixed version) I think. So that means for atleast an hour it was showing that... Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on this reddit post, was there for atleast an hour before someone posted here.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If the error was due to the vandalism in sidebar person as stated above then this would have been on every page where a transclusion of that template is present. The variance between IPs and accounts was probably due to caching reasons. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

That's what jojo emerus said on WP:ANI. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2017

Thepoliticsexpert (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add edit on his retweet of Jayda Fransen whoch was condemned by Theresa May — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticsexpert (talk • contribs)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

the first without prior military or government service is too wordy

Should be replaced with without prior public service. Public service not only includes government service and military service, it also includes common public sector services such as police, firefighter, public school teacher, paramedic.

38.121.71.168 (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change to Alma mater naming convention

Hi all, I'm proposing a change to the wording of the Alma mater that was decided as per Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 56#Universities in infobox. I mainly came across this as a Wharton undergraduate alumnus myself, who noticed the odd naming convention used for the infobox's Alma mater section.

Currently, it's displaying as "The Wharton School", which is not the proper name of the university that President Trump graduated from. Instead, Wharton is a school within the University of Pennsylvania. I propose that we spell out both Wharton and the University of Pennsylvania in the combined format, "Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania".

Some supporting reasons for this change:

1. The degree conferred to Wharton undergraduates is from the University of Pennsylvania
2. Penn advises its students to spell out both the University itself and the school in their resume samples - [Source]
3. If President Trump had instead attended the College of Arts and Sciences at Penn, we would not simply be writing "The College" under his Alma Mater
4. Other alumni of Wharton around Wikipedia either spell out the combined version with both Penn & Wharton or just write University of Pennsylvania followed by the degree in parenthesis. E.g., Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai, Jon Huntsman Sr.
5. Writing "The Wharton School" alone may be more acceptable for MBA graduates, but generally unseen for undergraduates
6. Our own article for Wharton spells out "Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania" as the page title — "The Wharton School" redirects to this page.

chsh (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Naming the University seems like the conventional choice. Though most universities have colleges, naming the college only seems to come up with pretentious prestigious colleges. GCG (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sexual abuse allegations need to be mentioned in the lead

We really need to get the sexual abuse allegations back into the lead section. This was included there for ages before it was unilaterally removed by someone, it has an extremely lengthy in-depth article, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations (which in itself is a very strong indication that a topic merits mention in the lead section of the main article), and it is one of the most defining features of Trump's presidency, second perhaps only to the scandals related to Russia. In the past someone claimed that there was no longer any coverage of this to justify its exclusion, a blatantly wrong and ridiculous claim. Just from today we have e.g.:

• Trump sex harassment accusers demand congressional inquiry, BBC
• Trump accusers renew sexual misconduct charges against him, say it was ‘heartbreaking’ to see him elected, The Washington Post
• Women detail sexual allegations against Trump, CNN
• Trump accusers band together, seek congressional probe of 'sexual misconduct', Fox News
• 4 Trump Accusers Call On Congress To Investigate Sexual Misconduct Claims, HuffPo
• Women accusing President Trump of sexual harassment call for a congressional investigation, USA Today
• https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2017-12-11/women-accusing-trump-of-sexual-misconduct-seek-congressional-probe, US News & World Report
• Trump accusers call for Congress to investigate sexual harassment allegations against him, ABC News
• Women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct speak out, NBC
• Women who have accused Trump of inappropriate conduct, Reuters
• Three Trump Accusers Seek Congressional Probe, Bloomberg
• Women demand probe into alleged Trump sexual assaults, Al Jazeera
• 3 Female Accusers Call for Congress to Investigate President Trump for Sexual Harassment, TIME
• This is just the tip of the iceberg; I find hundreds of articles about this issue just from today from media around the globe

The coverage of this issue has been continous and extremely extensive for much more than a year – in addition this issue has received coverage (although not as much as today for obvious reasons, given that Trump was a comparatively obscure figure before he won the Republican nomination) for at least 30 years. The sexual abuse allegations are, next to the Russia thing, clearly the single most covered issue related to Trump in reliable sources, possibly the most covered issue. Certainly when we take his whole life into account this is the dominant story. It thus ought to feature prominently here. The fact that it already has a stand-alone article underlines that. Not mentioning it in the lead will clearly come across as strongly partisan/politically motivated and neither NPOV nor encyclopedic in any way. --Tataral (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Long term coverage and historically significant.Casprings (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 69#Shouldn't something about the sexual misconduct allegations be in the lead? for a recent discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, this question was raised very recently after the Weinstein scandal broke out. Although the discussion was not a formal RfC, opinions varied widely on the suitability of this episode for the lede section. With 5 editors for and 11 against, I do not see a path to obtaining consensus for the lede. — JFG ^talk 23:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You assume that few of the opposers would be swayed by the above list showing massive, high-quality RS coverage continuing through present day—which was not clearly shown in the previous discussion—and you may be right. Many editors simply can't be swayed. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not assume anything and would be happy to see a RfC if somebody cares to build a well-crafted proposal. Consensus may have changed with recent coverage. — JFG ^talk 23:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As one of the opposers in the discussion in Archive 69, I'm not swayed by that list at all. The question isn't whether the allegations are notable (they are; and they are discussed in depth at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations), the question is whether they are relevant enough to be included in the lede. As a point of reference, they aren't mentioned in the lede at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In that case, Tataral, I suggest we stop farting around and start said RfC. Let me know if you need help framing or formatting it, I don't know how much of that you've done and it's often done wrong. It often helps to do it first in a sandbox, minus the {{Rfc}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, an RfC would be a good idea. If you to want to help initiating one that would be most welcome. --Tataral (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: I'll get something started in one of my sandboxes and then post here. No reason why it shouldn't be open to improvement by anybody, within reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: Basic structure is here. Start by adding the "background" part. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't belong in the campaign context. The allegations relate to Trump personally, not to the campaign.

As for the lead - I completely agree. I made similar arguments previously (in the middle of the discussion - they were largely unaddressed), and I also proposed that the sub-section on the allegations be shifted from the campaign section to the personal life section (see same discussion for more arguments). If you guys are going to set something up, feel free to take from that discussion as you'd like. Nick845 (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

THey should be in the lede. Anderson Cooper stated that the sexual assault allegations against Trump--in the form of the Billy Bush tape and the accusers--were the most covered issue of the campaign. Steeletrap (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Certainly belongs in the article intro, as the focus on his assault allegations are increasing by the day. Particularly in the wake of yesterday's tweet suggesting Senator Gillibrand would be a whore for campaign cash... Trump attacks Gillibrand in tweet critics say is sexually suggestive and demeaning. TheValeyard (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that is not what the tweet or source says. Might even be a BLP vio. Perhaps you should reconsider what you wrote there. PackMecEng (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I know how to read. Do you? The passage in question, "...and would do anything for them..." has been characterized as sexually suggestive by critics, which the source has covered. TheValeyard (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup I can read just fine, do you understand WP:OR and that DS extends to talk pages? Because it certainly does not seem like it. Especially when you are putting words in their mouth calling people whores. PackMecEng (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

My view is that there’s an imminent court decision coming soon about whether the defamation case of Summer Zervos will go forward in state court. I suggest we wait for that upcoming decision, because it makes no sense to haggle about what (if anything) should go into this lead when it’s inevitably going to have to be changed soon, one way or another. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There will continue to be something just over the horizon for some time. That nothing should be added until it's no longer subject to update is a really weak argument, considering that we are constantly editing the lead. But you are free to !vote No in the upcoming RfC, there is no rule against weak arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If there is to be an RfC I very much believe the BLP noticeboard should be notified as BLP issues are certainly involved. Personally, at this point, I think the existing five (?) paragraph lede may well be already overbalanced with three of those paragraphs dealing with his presidency. Should that to my eyes obvious violation of WP:WEIGHT be found acceptable, maybe the allegations might merit inclusion, but if there is in the eyes of enough others agreement with me on that point that would change things. On that basis, I might propose the RfC raise two questions, one regarding proportional WEIGHT in the lede and a second contingent question regarding the allegations. John Carter (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose further complication of this issue, as we already have enough complication to deal with, and I would suggest that you (1) !vote (or abstain) with the assumption that the lead will remain basically the same as to weight considerations, being the product of much discussion by many experienced editors, and (2) optionally start your own RfC about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC framing

I'm interested in opinions about my framing in my sandbox. I see nothing wrong with the general question, leaving the specifics for a separate discussion, but some editors call "Malformed RfC question!" when you're not specific. "I can't !vote Yes when I don't know what content would be added." Then, when you're specific, many of the !votes are Opposes that propose a different specific, and consensus for any one specific is impossible. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably need another RfC if this one closes as including it, to selected a wording among possibilities. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand. Still, no matter what you say in the RfC opener, many editors will respond with "I can't !vote Yes when I don't know what content would be added." Combined with other No !votes, there will likely be enough of that to kill a Yes consensus. If the Yes consensus is killed, there is no follow-on RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that could happen. Should define what you mean by mention a little more clearly I reckon though. I assume it means close to "Many allegations of sexual misconduct have been made against him". Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't get the feeling that anyone would advocate more than a relatively simple, short, one-sentence mention of the allegations in the lead (certainly I wouldn't). Thus I think it would be a good thing if the RfC included in some way a proposed wording, such as "several women have accused him of sexual misconduct." Can we have two questions at the same time, a general question and a proposed wording? If the proposed wording is relatively uncontroversial, it would seem more efficient. --Tataral (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If we move in the direction of specific, is there a reason not to go all the way? It's far more than several, and I would suggest "Since the 1980s, at least fifteen women have accused him of sexual misconduct." I'll await other comments on two questions at the same time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course some (perhaps many) editors will Oppose the above unless it also mentions his blanket denial and counter-accusations of politically-motivated lying, per NPOV. Before long, it's too long for the lead. And so it goes. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

”Since the 1980s” is misleading (unintentionally no doubt). All of the accusations became public after he started his 2016 campaign, except for two (by Ivana Trump and Jill Harth) that were withdrawn. Also, it could easily be rephrased with zero additional words to include his denial. For example: “Since 2016, numerous women have accused him of sexual misconduct, which he has denied." Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Numerous" is well known for causing problems. In this context, it could reasonably be interpreted as anything from 5 to 200, and is therefore too vague. "Since 2016, more than one dozen women have accused him of sexual misconduct, which he has denied." I tried hard to find a way to express that the alleged incidents span several decades, but that introduced its own ambiguity, implying that all the women alleged incidents spanning several decades. Concise is the enemy of accurate. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Since 2016, more than one dozen women have accused him of sexual misconduct, which he has denied" looks like a good wording for the proposal. --Tataral (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, with that endorsement and a "thanks" from Anythingyouwant, I have updated the sandbox accordingly. Let's wait a day or two for more comments here, as framing is critical. You still need to fill in the "background" part, which could largely be copy-and-paste from your opening post in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I would tweak it a little bit: "During 2016, about 15 women accused him of sexual misconduct years earlier, which he denied." That packs in more info with fewer words. But like I said, my view is that it's premature for us to make such an edit to the lead given that we'll know very soon whether there will be a case in state court or not. If such a case is rejected or postponed until after his presidency, then I'd leave all this stuff out of the lead. But otherwise it probably would need to be in the lead and phrased differently. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Given that there are ongoing accusations right now and that this is very much an ongoing issue which has been gaining much steam in the last week (see the links I posted) I think "since 2016" is better than "during 2016." Also, I'm not quite sure about the "years earlier" part; while perhaps technically correct it places a lot of emphasis on the fact that the more serious accusations relate to events from "long ago" and thus gives the impression that this is a matter that is mainly related to a long gone past, but the Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording where he discusses his habit of assaulting women isn't that old, being from the 2000s, and more to the point, his behaviour towards women is very much a current issue, which is the main reason it gets the attention that it does. Perhaps instead: "Since 2016, about 15 women have accused him of previous sexual misconduct, which he denied". Also, regarding the number 15, I'm not sure that we need the exact number in the lead, partly because it could change. So "several" or "over a dozen" would be good alternatives in my opinion. --Tataral (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

To get an idea of how to include this type of content in the lede, take a look at the last paragraph of the Bill Cosby article. Otherwise, a basic rule of thumb: If it deserves a section, then it must be mentioned in the lede. The weight is determined by the weight in the article, and if most of it has been spun-off into a large subarticle, then the size of that article, not the little mention left behind, determines the weight. This subject has great weight, not only because of how controversial it is, but by Trump's playboy life, a big part of his reputation.

Failure to include this content violates NPOV through use of editorial censorship guided by personal opinions, feelings, morals, etc. Stay neutral by leaving those things behind, looking at the content, and just DOING IT. It's supposed to be a cold, calculated, neutral decision. NPOV does not refer to neutral content, but to neutral editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Ok, you're arguing for inclusion, which is fine. Some of us including me feel it's largely a waste of time to have that discussion outside of an RfC. At this point, particularly in this subsection, we're trying to nail down exactly how to frame such an RfC, and that seems to be stalled. Do you have an opinion that might help move things forward? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't you love meta-bike sheds? — JFG ^talk 23:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

What would you suggest as the alternative? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that discussions on the merits are unproductive outside a proper RfC context. If I were in your shoes, I would just boldly start the RfC… I'm afraid I have no helpful opinion on how to frame the question, though. This subject has been very touchy. For the humour-impaired, this pun was intended. — JFG ^talk 09:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been intending to start one, it's just that I haven't had the time to get it done yet. Unless someone else does, I expect to start an RfC in a day or two. I think we have more or less agreed on a proposed wording, and that it's now a matter of small details. Possibly the RfC could indicate that the exact wording isn't set in stone; the main point should be to agree in principle that this material should be mentioned in some way. --Tataral (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

[5] - Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I checked out the draft page and I would oppose the sentence as it's currently written, as it doesn't fit anywhere in the current lead without being jarring to the reader. You might consider, instead of trying to make RfC respondents agree on a specific wording, simply ask if the Lead should make short mention of the accusations, and then if the response is yes, try to come up with a sentence (or better yet a half sentence) that works. ~Awilley (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

In principle I too would prefer a more general question. The lead currently isn't very well structured and in any event we will probably continue to make significant edits to it in the time to come. Therefore a more general decision is preferable in my view, while the exact wording and its placement in the lead should ideally be considered somewhat flexible, so that it can be integrated in the lead in a good way. But Mandruss suggested that people tend to complain if one doesn't propose a specific wording. Would a workable compromise be to phrase the main question in a general way as you suggest, and then propose a wording that should only be considered tentative? --Tataral (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Taken out upon RFC discussions re UNDUE and LEDE

This again ??? It was unstable 14 Oct 2016- 14 Nov 2016, and been taken out of lede since then due to RFC failing to get consensus, as the remover carefully said.

The minor event of 4 accusers had a PR appearance may be put to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, but is not significant there, let alone to this article or making a noticeable effect on his life -- he did get elected anyway for example.

To quote from when the question last re-re-returned ... Archive 46 ...

Tataral - to answer the initial question -- you're mistaken, the RFC consensus process ran against keeping this in the lead, it is in the template top for many Trump articles and in a lower subsection for this biographical article. It was discussed repeatedly, but in particular see Archive 31 and the Archive 35 entries. Th Sandstein note mentions reconsidering it again "after some time". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers again Markbassett (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

"No consensus" is not the same as "consensus to omit", and they should not be treated the same. There is nothing wrong with trying again and again until a consensus is reached either way. Sandstein's full comment, dated 13 Nov 2016 (13 months ago): "I therefore recommend that the discussion is repeated after some time to determine whether the issue is still considered to be of lead-worthy importance after the election." It's now after the election, and 13 months is easily "some time". Thus, Sandstein recommends this RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

However, given that there have been several other events relevant to the subject in the past year, and the fact that there was no positive position of support roughly a year ago, before all the actions of his presidency and other areas getting attention, I believe it is in no way complicating things to ensure that the lede is found to be compliant with policy and guidelines in all ways, not just the one you are primarily interested. John Carter (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

13 months have passed since that debate, as noted by M, and we have seen sustained controversy related to this/coverage in RS. Only this week there have been hundreds and hundreds of newspaper articles about it. Just from the last few hours:

• Trump lashes out at senator amid calls to resign over sexual misconduct allegations, CNN
• Trump attacks senator and dismisses sexual harassment claims as Democratic conspiracy, The Guardian
• Trump’s Combative Denials Again Draw Him Into the Sexual Harassment Debate, The New York Times
• Lawmakers seek probe into alleged Trump sexual assaults, AJE
• Donald Trump Just Claimed He Never Met Women Accusing Him of Sexual Harassment. That's Not True, TIME
• How to handle the sexual misconduct accusations against Trump, Washington Post
• Trump accusers: Who are the women at the centre of sexual harassment allegations against the US President?, The Independent
• Democratic women unite on demand to investigate Trump: Nearly all of the women in the House Democratic Caucus on Tuesday called for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to investigate allegations that President Trump engaged in sexual misconduct before winning the White House, The Hill
• From 'locker room talk' on, Trump fends off misconduct claims, Politico
• Trump is reportedly furious at UN ambassador Nikki Haley for saying his accusers 'should be heard', Associated Press
• Trump's Own Department of Justice Will Decide Whether to Investigate Him for Alleged Sexual Misconduct, Newsweek
• White House Presents Weak Witnesses To Defend Trump From Sexual Harassment, Assault Claims, Newsweek
• Trump Blames Democrats for Fueling Sexual Abuse Claims, Voice of America
• Lawmakers seek probe into alleged Trump sexual assaults, AJE
• Trump allies worried about political costs of attacking his accusers: report
• The list goes on and on, even when only looking at coverage from the last 24 hours ...

Since the last time we debated this Trump has supported a far-right white supremacist candidate to the senate who is best known for the extensive allegations of sexual abuse made against him (the allegations against him are mentioned in the lead section of his biography, even though the allegations against Trump have received probably a hundred times more coverage in RS).

It's quite clear that there aren't any policy-based reasons not to include this issue, the most widely covered issue related to Trump, in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a reliable source now... 70.44.154.16 (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As a person who opposes inclusion: I see no reason to oppose having another RFC on this topic at this time. I repeat that I am not impressed by the list of news stories, and will continue to not be impressed no matter how many links in CNN, Politico, etc. are presented. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki I'm just wondering what it would take for you to be convinced - would it be books about his life giving it a lot of weight? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I doubt any references will convince me at this time, unless there's new information that emerges (not just more coverage of the same stories as before). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Re "I doubt any references will convince me": That's fair enough, but you do realize that in that case we don't have to take your opinions on the matter into account, given that Wikipedia is based on the coverage in reliable sources, and not on our personal beliefs, e.g. about whether the coverage in RS is justified/fair/correct etc.? --Tataral (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if the Washington Post runs "Trump Sexual Harassment" as the A1 story for a month; if the news stories repeat the same coverage and there's no actual new news, it's not going in the lede based on "OMG so much coverage". Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, but this is ultimately an encyclopedia, not a dictatorship of vote-counting through links to web pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Put it in...it self evident that these allegations are relevant 2602:306:BD95:45F0:E45C:E70A:D878:7C31 (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

With this extensively disputed and having no apparent political or other impact, what would the lede say? Just as a practical matter, it seems to me that this would suck up a huge amount of editor resources that are more urgently needed to work on NPOV wording and sourcing throughout this article. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

what would the lede say? - Aren't we discussing exactly that in the preceding subsection? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing significant has happened - since the last RFC took it out for UNDUE and LEAD, so no reason for a new RFC. Look, this article is WP:BLP and focuss on his life story -- and really this simply made no big impact to his life so it's just not deserving prominence. The guidance for WP:BLP is also to be restrained -- not to be a tabloid putting up WP:SENSATION or WP:SCANDAL. Given that the last comparison is Bill Clinton where lead mentions none of the accused rape, affair/stalking with settlement, infamous blue dress but only mentions the impeachment due to perjury ... I think this is just wasting time. This is still failing UNDUE and LEDE as before because really nothing significant has changed. Markbassett (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

We are all volunteers and free to waste our time as we see fit. You are not required to waste any more of yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, just as a point of information, as per WP:DE and WP:TE, we are actually not all free to spend our time here entirely as we see fit, particularly as this page almost certainly qualifies for discretionary sanctions as per at least WP:ARBAP2. John Carter (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I am well aware that editors are not free to violate DE, TE, BLP, NOTFORUM, and various other things. I considered spending the time to make that comment 100% accurate, but I decided to give my audience credit for not taking everything so literally. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support running an RfC. It's probably a good time to test the consensus again. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support an RfC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose wasting further time debating whether we should use the RfC process to (try to) decide a question that is clearly worthy of RfC. This is a near-comical example of How To Get Nothing Done. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Just do it. You don't have to hold an RfC to see if you can hold an RfC (though thanks for asking). Volunteer Marek 06:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose nothing notable has happened since then and now to warrant a new RFC. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose it is true that a person doesn't need to have agreement for an RfC, but some might raise DE or TE concerns if they seem an RfC has been originated without sufficient cause. I doubt anything of substance would be done to the originator the first time, but worst-case-scenario it might become significant should any sort of second mistake of that broad type be made. And frankly I don't know that the limited consensus of a smallish number of respondents, if such a consensus were even reached, would necessarily trump BLP concerns anyway. John Carter (talk)£
• Comment: Although it's nice to see that there is consensus for holding an RfC, we aren't really having an RfC over whether to hold an RfC. An RfC will be initiated eventually, probably this week, once discussion of how to frame it has been ended or no longer serves a meaningful purpose. --Tataral (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support as a person who is almost certainly going to oppose the RfC, I do encourage you to start it. I won't be online for about ten days to comment (likely in opposition), but there's clearly enough support to litigate this topic again. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support I have proposed new text below, with plenitude of references. Are those who oppose this being in the lead joking? Find another article about someone accused of sexual harassment where it isn't in the lead. Profane Username (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC) (Striking !vote by blocked sock.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Text, with references

"Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by 19 women.  Although Trump has denied the allegations, polls show most Americans believe the allegations are true.  At least 8 U.S. Senators have called on Trump to resign over the allegations. 

References

• 'Support As nom. Crystalline prose, cuts through the hazy fog and delivers knowledge to our readers. There is no reasonable argument to not include this in the lead, other than "It makes someone I genuflect towards look bad! Keep it out!" Profane Username (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC) (Striking !vote by blocked sock.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. For starters, in matters of criminal law, polls are irrelevant. Number two, you conveniently omit the party affiliation of the Senators. Number three, as I’ve said before, I am watching to see whether there will be a trial in court about this involving Summer Zervos, and a decision on that is imminent. Number five, see the Bill Clinton lead, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for the input. I am comfortable changing it to 8 democratic U.S. Senators, if people would prefer. We can also cut the polls part if people find it irrelevant. Also, Clinton lead does mention the "sex scandal;" I'm not clear on the point there. Profane Username (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The Clinton lead does not mention any of the Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It mentions the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment in the lead. Maybe it should mention a little more, but no more than a sentence. Try the format I suggest below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Lewinsky was consenting adults and is not included in Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually she is mentioned there. Some of the women mentioned in the misconduct article were also consensual relationships. I think we should keep the Lewinsky mention because of its significance. It led to an impeachment. Then add one more sentence in the same format as I propose below for Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support short mention per our rules for a lede. As a rule of thumb, every subject worthy of a section should receive short mention in the lead. This is one of them. I suggest only the first sentence and denial, not the polls or rest. Also bundle the refs (not done here):

• "Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by 19 women, and he has denied the allegations.

It should obviously be tweaked and lengthened if anything more comes of it, such as legal convictions or settlements. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

References

There are no footnotes in the lead, so I don’t see why we should start now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't have to use footnotes. I just copied what was written above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support This is obvious, and no one throughout any of these discussions has made anything even approaching a persuasive point in opposition. It's getting absurd, really. Nick845 (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The lede should serve as a general introduction as to why the subject is notable and the allegations have had no effect on his career. There's very little information about the allegations in this article, in fact this proposal would add more detail to the lede than currently appears in the rest of the article! Per WP:LEAD, everything mentioned in the lede should be sourced in the body and nothing regarding public response or senators asking for his resignation appears in the article. Should he resign, or should there be major developments with the Summer Zervos lawsuit, we should reassess. See this similar RfC regarding Al Franken, which largely decided not to include the allegations until they actually did affect his career.LM2000 (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, the weight of the subject determines how much space we use in the lead. "Sexual misconduct allegations" is a nice sized summary of MULTIPLE sub-articles, and their weight and size should be factored in, not just the summary left behind in this article.

  The effect on his career is a rather irrelevant red herring. A man of his wealthy can get away with just about anything. He has stated that he could shoot (MURDER!) someone on Fifth Avenue and he wouldn't lose any supporters, a small minority of Americans. He's really saying that the murder would have NO EFFECT on his career, at least with that small minority. That's proving to be true, but it still has a great effect on his reputation with the vast majority of Americans and the rest of the world, so it actually does have an effect on his career. Payback just comes later for him. Karma is on its way. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• As discussed in the previous discussion on this issue, most of that section is about the fallout from the Billy Bush tape, which has not been proposed to be included here. I'll wait for Karma to catch up before I switch my !vote, as I did with Franken.LM2000 (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I would rather put child-out-of-wedlock into the BLPs of Pres. Warren Harding and Thomas Jefferson since there’s actual conclusive proof.[6] In contrast, these accusations regarding Trump never have been verified in court. That’s why I am waiting to see about the Summer Zervos case. Don’t rush karma. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not it ends up in court only affects how we report it. We still report it. That's what we do. We report allegations, verified or not. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears that both articles follow policy very nicely:

Harding's extramarital affairs are mentioned in a nice section: Warren G. Harding#Extramarital affairs, and in the lead.

Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings is likewise mentioned in a nice section: Thomas Jefferson#Jefferson–Hemings controversy, and in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The Harding lead doesn’t say anything about children out of wedlock. Fine if it did though. Do you understand why? Because the facts are known. With Trump, a woman who never met him can tell a reporter in 2016 that she did meet him in 1985 on a date, and he touched her shoulder without explicit permission, or said something inappropriate, and wham she’s into the lead of his Wikipedia article. In contrast, there’s potentially an actual court case coming up soon, so why not wait and see what happens with that? I never remotely suggested we shouldn’t cover this stuff, but that can be done later than the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no. Not at all. We don't get into that kind of detail in the lead. The fact that a president has been accused by multiple women is very notable, has its own section, and multiple sub-articles. That's good enough for short mention in the lead, but usually not for listing the women and all the charges. We write a short summary, and readers can read the article for the details.

As far as Trump's well-known and highly publicized adulterous affairs while married, literally bragging/admitting/confessing his actual and repeated practice for many years of grabbing women by the pussy, and multiple women confirming he did it to them, and they didn't like it, that's very different than your weird and unreal scenario of some woman he's never met falsely accusing him. Not only do we not have or know of such cases, if we did they obviously don't "wham she’s into the lead of his Wikipedia article". They would not get mentioned here. You lost quite a bit of credibility with that one. Be more serious and address what he's actually done, confirmed by himself and those he did it to.

As far as court cases, those can be dealt with as they come. Some may be worth mention in the lead, and others not. -- BullRangifer (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You’re suggesting that every weird and sketchy accusation go into the lead, not by name, but by increasing the number we give. For instance, his ex-wife Ivanka said some stuff in a divorce proceeding and later recanted, but we would use her to pad the number in the lead. Same with some others. Some of the accusations are more serious than others. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is not a properly formatted RfC, it has entirely ignored all the previous discussion on how to frame the question, and I wouldn't support the proposed wording here or having 3 sentences and 16 footnotes about this in the lead. It should be just one sentence. Note that my oppose here is of a technical nature and entirely unrelated to the question of whether the abuse allegations as such should be mentioned in the lead. I will start a proper RfC later, but it was delayed due to the discussion on how to frame the question + christmas. --Tataral (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tataral above and on the basis of possible BLP issues regarding as of yet still questionable mere allegations, even if I do personally think he did so in at least a few of them, and with concerns regarding WEIGHT in a highly charged political article about a politician many people have serious preexisting opinions involving dislike and distrust, which I tend to share but I acknowledge are still relevant issues particularly regarding material which some might with some justification maybe be in the lead of one or more of the spinout articles but not necessarily of the main article.
• There is I think a real question considering how many chronological and other kinds of subarticles this topic should have, particularly with his decades long habit of lunging for every camera he sees and the accompanying mountain of information about him which might reasonably qualify for inclusion somewhere here. I might myself see if the article could be broken up into at least three chronological subarticles for early business career, the period of his trying to be a media star, and his political career first. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose while I'm likely to oppose any version, the reference-bombing and excessive detail makes this a complete non-starter. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposing a change to the first sentence

As seen in other articles on US presidents, the lede begins with (name) is an American politician (and whatever else they may be) who served/is serving as the nth President of the United States (from x to y).

Example 1: Ronald Wilson Reagan (/ˈreɪɡən/; February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was an American politician and actor who served as the 40th President of the United States from 1981 to 1989. Example 2: William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001.

I am proposing that the lede be changed to:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman and television personality who is currently serving as the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017.

CatcherStorm ^talk 04:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but this has been discussed here at great length, multiple times, and the current lede is the consensus version. See "Current consensus #17" at the top of this page. --MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Melanie. I don't like the "blank who is serving as" for any sort of politician article. For example, what sounds better: "Bob Jones is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 1st district" or "Bob Jones is an American Republican Party politician who is currently serving as the U.S. Representative from Texas's 1st district"? I'd go with the former. MB298 (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus can change. The unusual construct we currently have is there to satisfy those editors who didn't like the idea of Trump being called a politician, even though he absolutely is. I think the proposal by CatcherStorm has merit. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO it's more about repetition (I've argued the same for Obama etc). President is a title and what is most associated with Trump - should be first. Politician adds nothing to the fact that he is president. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Disagree. A politician (in elected democracies, anyway) is someone who is seeking election, or has been elected to engage in political activities. Every article Wikipedia has on politicians refers to them as politicians except this one, and only because Trump doesn't like to be thought of as a politician and so editors who are (mostly) of a certain political persuasion have seen to it that the article reflects his wishes. In the future, I have no doubt the article will be normalized and this nonsensical situation will end. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course, Trump supporters are the reason Trump isn't called a politician here, please. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - For each example precedent supporting the change, I have no doubt I could find at least one not supporting it, and there is no real need for inter-article consistency here. I'm not aware of any guideline support for that rationale, and that's not likely to be an oversight by the community. One could make a decent argument that this kind of consistency would be dry and boring for readers. We might as well propose that all sentences should have the same length. So I tend to discount such "appeals to precedent".
  While consensus can change, I don't see any new argument, certainly not enough new argument to revisit this so soon simply because we might get a different result with a different mix of participants. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: See the ledes of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, and John F. Kennedy. They all refer to them as American politicians, until around Dwight D. Eisenhower. I believe this is because they were modern-era presidents, as Trump is. I think we should involve Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents in this discussion. CatcherStorm ^talk 19:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Its not just American presidents. Theresa May, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, & Justin Trudeau all use this style.GCG (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support the proposal here needs copy-editing (currently serving as the 45th and current is awkward), but I agree that the proposal here matches the style on most other world leaders. (but not all; e.g. Shinzo Abe) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2018

Change the opening paragraphs of this article to stipulate that Donald Trump won the American Presidential race in 2016, "securing 304 votes in the electoral college, but losing the popular vote by 2,865,075 votes" This is reasonable and accurate, providing context for the below information, whilst also streamlining information for visitors to Wikipedia, who may be visiting this page for this information. 2401:7000:B078:E400:7092:7A4:3C5D:F6A9 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

This article is Trump’s bio. Stats like this would better fit in an article about his presidency or election. (You can find links to these articles in the infobox at the upper-right of the article.) However, the text in the leads of all of the articles has been painfully agreed upon and any chance that you could change consensus to your text is highly unlikely. O3000 (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. We had endless discussions about this for months after the election and his inauguration - whether to include the numbers in the lede, whether to point out in the lede that he failed to win the popular vote. The eventual conclusion was to simply say in the lede that he won, and leave all those details for the article itself. That may not have been a perfect conclusion, but at least it did stop the arguing - which would certainly start up again, very vigorously, if we were to do if you suggest. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Global warming position

Not convinced that the section dealing with Trump's position on climate change is representative of the facts. To say that Trump does not accept the science sounds rather too legitimate, as if he has a well-considered contrary position. This is followed by a sentence which states that he said in 2012 that climate change is a hoax, but that he was joking - as if it was a mere false step, or that he has even an iota of credibility in this area whatsoever.

We know that he continued with his conspiracy theory in December 2013:

• http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/you-are-so-stupid-it-painful-trump-blasted-saying-us-could-use-good-old-global-warming-1653076

... and several times in 2014:

• https://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-global-warming-hoax/

... and in 2015 and 2016:

• http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-symons/trump-now-blames-scientis_b_11228538.html

... and of course we have seen in the last few days of 2017 a lot of headlines about buffoonish comments on global warming thanks to some localized snowfall.

Here are some more sources, all of which describe or characterize Trump as a denialist or conspiracy theorist:

• https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/11/president-trump-global-climate-change-denial-environment/
• https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-climate-change-skeptic-denial/510359/
• https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-and-the-truth-climate-change-denial
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37936740/what-climate-change-deniers-like-donald-trump-believe
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-not-deleting-climate-change-denial-tweets-despite-chinese-hoax-global-warming-claims-a7332396.html
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-19/how-trump-climate-denial-is-catalyzing-the-world-quicktake-q-a

There are hundreds more.

• Propose that the current formulation:

Trump does not accept the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2012, he said that global warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese, but later said that he was joking.

... should read:

Trump is a climate change denier. He has frequently expressed an opinion that climate change is a hoax or a conspiracy arranged for the economic benefit of China. Cpaaoi (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find good enough sourcing to use the term "denier". Most reliable sources don't use that term when describing Trump and this article should reflect mainstream viewpoints. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You mean apart from the BBC, The Independent, National Geographic, Bloomberg, The Atlantic, CBS News, Newsweek, HuffPost, The Guardian? Denying denialism? Cpaaoi (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You didn't provide any sources to back up your claim. I checked the four listed in the OP and none of them label Trump as a "denier". But should you find any, please don't cherry-pick. Our goal is not to find the most incriminating sources and use them to write an article. Instead, Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent mainstream viewpoints. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

If one has many cherries, it may that one is being selective. Or one may simply be standing in a cherry-tree orchard. All the following describe Trump as denying, being a denier/denialist/disbeliever, or being considered a denier:

* https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/673005/Trump-the-climate-change-denier-Republican-hires-top-sceptic-as-energy-advisor/amp

* https://thinkprogress.org/trump-even-gets-climate-denial-wrong-889a61198961/

* http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/stasi-hurricane-trump-taps-climate-change-denier-nasa-article-1.3464200

* http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-myron-ebell-are-climate-deniers-dream-team-heres-why-1592338

* https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-why-trump-denies-climate-change-10677570

* https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44720/Climate+change+denier+Donald+Trump+takes+US+out+of+Paris+climate+deal

* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/17/beijing-to-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-chinese-hoax/

* https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2017/03/13/trumps-epa-chief-is-a-climate-change-denialist-why-is-anyone-surprised/#ecbf01822fc7

* https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate-change/what-are-donald-trumps-policies-climate-change-and-other-environmental-issues

* https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/24/donald-trump-i-dont-believe-in-climate-change/

* https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/meet-myron-ebell-the-climate-contrarian-leading-trumps-epa-transition/

* https://newrepublic.com/article/143066/trumps-cowardly-new-form-climate-change-denial

* http://prospect.org/article/will-harvey-dent-trump%E2%80%99s-climate-change-denial-probably-not

* http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/338721-bloomberg-trumps-climate-change-denial-is-embarrassing

* https://www.salon.com/2016/11/14/denying-climate-change-is-only-part-of-it-5-ways-donald-trump-spells-doom-for-the-environment_partner/

* https://www.democracynow.org/2017/7/13/donald_trump_s_climate_change_denial

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/09/trumps-climate-change-denial-rattles-u-s-businesses/?utm_term=.44e8ae4588c9

* http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-climate-20161127-story.html

* http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/12/trump-climate-timeline/

* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/sunday/as-donald-trump-denies-climate-change-these-kids-die-of-it.html

Want more? Cpaaoi (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC):

The first link doesn't call Trump a denier. The second link isn't a reliable source. The third is an opinion piece and is only reliable for the opinions of its author. I stopped at that point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice try. First link: "Donald Trump has cemented his stance as a ‘climate change denier’...". And I'm glad you've stopped. (But if we're focusing on opinions - as if there might be some stone tablet on which Trump is labeled a denier! - here's the opinion of Stephen Hawking:

"By denying the evidence for climate change, and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, Donald Trump will cause avoidable environmental damage to our beautiful planet, endangering the natural world, for us and our children." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40461726.) Cpaaoi (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, that makes one out of seven (assuming the Express counts as a reliable source and not an opinion piece). Either way, your own sources are proof that that term is not widely used by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, the BBC article you provide says no such thing. That's a quote from (apparently) Stephen Hawking, not BBC News. You are now 1 for 8. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea how you are scoring this. Interesting that you first said that the article should represent "mainstream viewpoints", but are now dismissing "mainstream viewpoints" as opinion. Are we trying to have it both ways? Anyway, I thought you stopped? Cpaaoi (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Cpaaoi, I agree with the general point you're trying to make. I think you can avoid the argument you're in by using: Trump does not accept the scientific consensus on climate change. He has frequently expressed an opinion that climate change is a hoax or a conspiracy arranged for the economic benefit of China. O3000 (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think your version would certainly be an improvement, O3000. I would personally still cleave to denier; if it walks like a denier and it quacks like a denier (and lots of journalists and commentators call it a denier) then it is probably a denier. But that's why I'm asking for opinions here; I'll step back and see what others say. Cpaaoi (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cpaaoi: Simple: I am looking for third-party reliable sources which call Trump a denier. Non-reliable sources don't count. Opinion pieces don't count. Quotes don't count. I'm looking for actually, bona-fide news coverage from respected news sources.

Keep in mind that "denier" is a word to watch and a contentious label. It should only be used when widely used by reliable sources. Quite honestly, it's not widely used by reliable sources and therefore shouldn't be used in this article.

If you want to make another suggestion that doesn't use "denier", go ahead. Until then I see this as a non-starter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You've got two long lists above. I'm not going to go further with you, A Quest For Knowledge. WP:LISTEN Cpaaoi (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer. I don't get paid to check your sources. All I can say is that I checked 8 that you provided, and at best, only one supports your argument. You need to prove that it's widely used. Instead, your own sources are evidence that it's not widely used. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You may find difficulty getting anyone to look through your list. I saw in the titles socialistworkerparty, stevensalzberg, blogs, and opinion and didn’t bother clicking on the links. Better to have a shorter list of better sources. I also think using labels will result in a year of reverts and arguments. The text can be strengthened without using a contentious label. Also, keep in mind that accusations of WP:DE can be DE. O3000 (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, most of those sources are either unreliable or opinion articles. Most of the sources by mainstream publications like the NYT or WSJ are blogs and opinion articles they decided to publish. I really hope you (Cpaaoi) didn't expect to convince anyone through the socialistworkerparty, Mother Jones, Think Progress, Salon, etc., links. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed change. I honestly don't see the proposed revised text as any improvement on what is already in the article. Even though Trump is clearly a climate change denier, it is going to be very difficult to organize a consensus around calling Trump a "climate change denier" in Wikipedia's voice. The existing text makes his nonsensical position quite clear, and I feel that is sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think the proposed sentence is an improvement and labeling someone like that isn't very encyclopedic. However looking at the current sentence makes me want to replace "does not accept" with "rejects". ~Awilley (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Replacing "does not accept" with "rejects" would be fine with me. I'm tempted to make the change myself, but it's probably better to get more feedback given that this is a contentious topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • "Rejects" is a YUGE improvement. I would see such a change as a non-controversial improvement to the language. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
      • It's been several days (well, over a week) so I went ahead and made the change. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• A Quest For Knowledge, good move. That's simpler, accurate, and makes the point. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support O3000's version; he's made ample comments since 2012. Oppose using "denier", which has multiple problems. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)