Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Seeking GA nominator

This article was last reviewed for GA nine years ago ... when it had a total of 17 sources listed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I could nominate it, but there's still quite a lot of work to do on obvious stuff (like formatting the footnotes), and although I've fixed up many of the sections recently, I still haven't checked the politics section. Can we wait awhile more? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Even without citation concerns, I guarantee this would fail for stability alone if nominated anytime soon. At least wait until the election is over before taking to GAN. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

We'll see how it goes. I don't see edit-warring. I see improvements.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the near-constant updates that seem to keep coming and coming. Articles need to settle down without so many changes to pass FAC or GAN (except of course for edits made in accordance with reviews). Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawing request. I agree that we ought to leave well enough alone (till after the election, perhaps). Many thanks for the pointers. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Even if it fails to become a "good article" because of alleged instability, merely going through the process can improve the article quite a bit. We're not there yet, though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Daily Beast?

There are several instances of the Daily Beast being used to source content in this article. The most recent discussion I could find on the RSN seems to indicate that it would not be a reliable source, particularly for BLP's. It's an opinion based publication and its masthead includes titles like "Scummy". I also note that it's not used at all as a source at Hillary Clinton. I believe it should be removed as a source from this article. Thoughts??CFredkin (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Daily Beast is a reliable source, but probably not among the best. It's won awards, it's under editorial control, discussions at WP:RSN have been indeterminate (example: [1]), it is cited by other sources: [2] [3], and they have taken responsibility for mistakes: [4].- MrX 22:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam war section -- major rewrite -- 31 May 2016 edit by User:Anythingyouwant

User:Anythingyouwant extensively modified this section with the explanation: reorganize Vietnam stuff a bit

The edit should hardly be characterized in this way. It was a major rewrite, involved removing two original sources (WNYW and "The Smoking Gun). This rewrite changed the tone of the section and attempts to "whitewash" Trump's inaccurate statements to the press. Those inaccuracies were well documented in the original and contributed by several editors with footnotes. Anythingyouwant has provided no reasoning for his major edit.

I find no problems in the previous version (quoted below) and although harder on Trump, it is much closer to the truth:

Trump was eligible for the draft lottery during the Vietnam War.[43] "I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number." he told WNYW in 2011.[44] Selective Service records retrieved by The Smoking Gun website from the National Archives show that, although Trump did eventually receive a high selective service lottery number in 1969, he was not drafted earlier because of four student deferments (2-S) while attending college, and after receiving a medical deferment (1-Y, later converted to 4-F) obtained in 1968 after his college graduation, prior to the lottery being initiated.[45] Trump was deemed fit for service after a military medical examination in 1966 and was briefly classified as 1-A by a local draft board shortly before his 1968 medical disqualification.[46] Trump attributed his medical deferment to "heel spurs" in both feet, according to a 2015 biographer,[38] but told an Iowa campaign audience he suffered from a spur in one foot, although he could not remember which one.[46] Gaas99 (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a diff of the edit in question. It shows that I removed an unreliable source (blog post at "The Corner"); removed overly-technical and unnecessary language like 1Y, 2S, 4S; moved some stuff to a note that seems kind of vague and POINTy ("When asked in 2015 about his medical deferment due to heel spurs, Trump told reporters that he could not immediately remember which foot, but later that day he said both feet"); cited CBS News instead of The Smoking Gun website; et cetera. I am busy right this second, but hope that other editors will chime in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually your diff shows nothing of the kind. If you will look at what you removed, it was a quote from the National Review; corner was merely part of the URL. As far as the statement about both feet, please reread the reference and note that that was not a statement by Trump but rather by some unnamed person from his campaign staff. You will also note that the CBS news reference quotes the Smoking Gun as the original source. 1Y, 2S and 4F (the latter in particular) are not overly technical and have a special meaning to those who lived through the era. Gaas99 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding National Review, "The Corner" is a blog they run (described here at Wikipedia) and the link to it (that I removed) is here. You used that as a source for the statement "Trump was eligible for the draft lottery during the Vietnam War." But we already have a solid source for that, and I cite CBS for the statement "eventually received a high selective service lottery number in 1969." Wikipedia considers CBS News to be a more reliable source than a blog post at National Review. Most readers of this Wikipedia article will have no idea what 1Y, 2S, and 4S mean and those codes are unnecessary to convey the key information about Trump; if the codes are included then we would have to explain what they mean (which you didn't do), and so the whole paragraph would become too long. You're correct that the statement about "both feet" is attributed to his campaign instead of him personally, so I have fixed that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct about the "The Corner" being a blog run by the National Review. Nevertheless, the inclusion of reporting by the National Review and/or its readers lends more credibility to the section than the references you have chosen to retain (Washington Post and CBS News). Although the latter references are more established news sources than the blog (but not the National Review), they are also frequently accused by conservatives of "liberal bias". I see no reason to remove references while citing the same source three times. Regarding your deletion of the Selective Service designations, you will note that there is a brief explanation before each is mentioned and no further explanation is required (IMHO "student deferment" and "medical deferment" are self explanatory). But we quibble about minor items. The main point and the point that I mentioned in my original post was that you have changed the tone of the section. The original section began (second sentence) with a quote from Trump which told only a small portion of the story and although true was misleading. Your edit has made this key point an afterthought. The section has two purposes. One is to present the facts of how Trump avoided the draft. The other is to present his response when asked how he avoided the draft. Gaas99 (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I've read through your comment a few times to try and understand better. For now, I'd like to suggest we put aside the items about which you say "But we quibble about minor items." We can come back to them later. So, I am trying to figure out how best to address this part of your comment: "The original section began (second sentence) with a quote from Trump which told only a small portion of the story and although true was misleading. Your edit has made this key point an afterthought.". Maybe if you would be more specific and use quotes, I could understand better. You say that originally the section began with a true but misleading quote from Trump, but then you say it was a key point. How can a misleading quote be a key point? I have looked again at the diff I provided above, and I can't figure out what quote from Trump you're referring to. Can you please clarify? Is it the one where he says "I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number"? I put that at the end because the high number was chronologically after the student deferments and the medical deferment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is the one "I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number". It is misleading on the part of Trump and not on the part of the editor(s). It is a key point because it points out that Trump, when given the opportunity to tell the interviewer (from WWNY) to explain how he avoided the draft chose to say something which was far from the whole story and for all practical purposes was untrue. He did not avoid the draft because of his high lottery number, he avoided it because of his student deferments and his medical disqualification. The high lottery number was just icing on the cake and came later. Even if he had received a low lottery number he was already disqualified. I suggest that since there have been no other editors weighing in on this that we revert to the original version of the text with the addition of your Wa Post and CBS news references (but without deleting the original references) since this was the result of inputs from multiple editors. Gaas99 (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Another shady part-time sleeper account gets their say. Awesome. Let's keep it real, folks. Doc talk 07:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Popular culture section

Recently, several details regarding Trump were removed. These included Handros' "Trump: What's the Deal", the Comedy Central Roast, his attendance towards the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and the Last Week Tonight segment.

• In regards to "Trump: What's the Deal", it is understandable since it is a 90s documentary that received little coverage until recently, but even now it is only covered in Huffington Post and The Guardian.

• However, for his appearance in the Comedy Central Roast, I found a piece on Wall Street Journal:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704399804576192982669539582

• In his appearance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2011, it has received coverage both in 2011 and in 2016.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/nyregion/after-roasting-trump-reacts-in-character.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/obama-trumps-adversaries-054016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/02/politics/donald-trump-obama-white-house-correspondents-dinner/

• Finally, in regards to the controversial segment on Last Week Tonight, it received coverage on major news sources, and not just on Entertainment sites:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/business/media/trump-segment-on-john-oliver-show-explodes-on-youtube.html

http://time.com/4240734/john-oliver-donald-trump-last-week-tonight/

http://time.com/4277790/john-oliver-donald-drumpf-records/

http://www.straitstimes.com/tech/trumped-up-surname-and-strains-of-pasta-mania

• Also, in my research, Trump was again featured on later segments on the John Oliver show such as in:

June 6, 2016: http://www.businessinsider.com/john-oliver-trump-university-investigation-2016-6 [Regarding Trump University

• The reason why these appearances are important for Trump is because it helped shape his public reception both positively and negatively. For example, on his appearance on Last Week Tonight, several people referred to Trump as Drumpf. (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, bare listings of pop culture "appearances" are not encyclopedic and not good writing. For example, the content I removed:

"On February 28, 2016, Trump was the subject of a segment of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver that was named after him. The segment, hosted by comedian John Oliver, was critical of Trump."

This tells the reader that someone publicly satirized Trump. Really? How unusual. Where is the analysis of how it has this shaped "his public reception both positively and negatively" (do you mean shaped the public's perception?). There is an abundance of biographical content that we could include about Trump, but the only pop culture content that should be included is that which actually has historical relevance and significance.- MrX 12:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

In the Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) article itself, there is a clear Reception section. For example, the term "Donald Drumpf" so viral that it surpassed both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. In other example, the video had reached over 20 million views on Youtube. In fact, the article itself is considered a "Good Article" by the Wikipedia community. Furthermore, how are each of these pop culture references "Bare Listings"? These are full of citations from all over the news spectrum. Even his appearance on Comedy Central had these citations. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the popularity of some of the pop culture references; only there relevance in as serious biography of Trump's life. By 'bare listing', I mean that each paragraph stands in isolation to the other paragraphs, as if they were bullet points on a forgotten page of a PowerPoint presentation. There's no flow or context to tie them together, in the form of well-written prose. For example: "On June 7, 2016, Meryl Streep dressed up as Trump." ← Why is this included in a biography at all? I can't imagine that this article will ever make it GA status with that type of dross.- MrX 17:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"Why is this included in a biography at all?"

Partly for fun, X. (See Yoshiman6464 user pager).

I have to agree with your point about whether the material is worth keeping. The article is about Trump himself - his history, his projects, and so forth - rather than about someone's shaping someone else's reception or perception of him. I don't think the article needs to include a compilation of such items.

Everything has to relate to Trump himself (or to his published works and such) directly.

A few authoritative book reviews would be helpful to the reader - and eminently encyclopedic. As for the items listed above, you may want to call them "ephemera" rather than "dross".

Technically, material that doesn't directly relate to the subject is OR. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yoshiman6464- You made a claim about Trump's appearances (in aggregate):

"It helped shape his public reception both positively and negatively."

Statistically, none of the appearances had any significant effect on Trump's reception (or perception) by the public. In each case the audience was less than 5% of the general public, with the exception of the video. And the video audience was self-selected; most of the viewers had likely formed a fixed favorable/unfavorable perception of Trump (or a mostly predetermined reception of his remarks) already (the well-known "silo effect"). Moreover, as your comment itself suggests, you have no idea whether the aggregate effect of the appearances has been positive or negative (or nil). For that matter, I think it would be hard to find any authoritative RS that would directly support such a claim at this time. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the inclusion of this trivial fluff. Spin it off into a sub-article that will suck more. Doc talk 07:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

See also section

I have an issue with 2016 Chicago protest in the "See also section". This has less to do with Donald Trump itself and more so the 2016 election. In fact, it is already listed in the "Violence and expulsions at rallies" section within the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 page. Do you mind if I remove it? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes you can remove it, it's already listed in it's relevant location.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I please clear up Trump's political positions section?

This section right now is a mess. No subtitles, no clear constructing, 4 references for about every sentence. It's unreadable, and for some reason, very very negatively written Some things don't make any sense at all. For example, half of the "foreign policy" section is about Israel and Palestine? No mention of his vow to improve releations with Russia, China etc. And I still don't understand how Trump sometimes showing slight support for a fringe theory deserves a whole section on the main page. Also this sentence: "Trump proposed that "there has to be some sort of punishment" for women who have abortions after they were hypothetically outlawed." makes absolutely no sense and shouldn't even be there, as it doesn't relate to his actual policy on abortion, but he was talking about abortion laws in a hypothetical world, not, you know, the real world we're living in.

So can I please divide the political positions up so that it's actually readable, update the immigration policy section and shorten it + make it more neutral. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 16:35, 15 June and often seems to put Hillary Clinton in a good light? It seems very unneutral, actually. Also, the "muslim ban" section is completely outdated, as he just did an immigration speech where he said he wouldn't actually ban Muslims, but people from countries with terrorist links.

2016 (UTC)

Hi ThiefOfBagdad, first, thank you for adding the headers, that's a nice improvement. With that said, I find the section to be, in general, well laid out, easily readable, and very well sourced, (albeit there are some improvements that need to be made). It gives the reader a good introduction to many of his positions which is the purpose of the section (if the reader then wants more they are a click away from the main article). For example, near the top it discusses his positions on Social issues. It lets the reader know his views on Abortion, Medical marijuana, Gay marriage, Gun control, etc. I have no idea what you mean by "putting Hillary Clinton in a good light?" They are just facts, supported by sources. Trump is for Medical marijuana, against Recreational marijuana. He is Pro-life and would ban late term abortions (with exceptions). He is opposed to gun control in general. There is nothing "unneutral" about these facts.

In order to move forward with this discussion we need to get into specifics and work together, slowly. It makes the most sense to follow the natural order of the section so let's start with Social issues. I would be fine with removing the sentence that talks about "there has to be some sort of punishment" for women regarding abortion; this level of detail belongs in the main article. Do you agree with removing that sentence? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence seems to be completely taken out of context and might trick readers into thinking Trump actually wants to punish woman who have abortions, which is absolutely not true. I also don't think it's nesecairy to note that he has a New York concealed carry permit. Trump has also recentely came out, after the Orlando shooting, as, frankly, a major ally of the LGBT community, and I think it would be fair to add that too. -- ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the abortion "punishment" material [5]

I would be fine with removing the "New York concealed carry permit".

Please provide the text you propose (with the sources) in regards to his support of the LGBT community. I gotta run right now but I'll check back in later. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This would be better in my opinion:

Some political analysts describe Trump as a  "moderate" regarding LGBT rights and abortion. Trump describes himself as pro-life and would ban late-term abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or health. He is in favor of cutting federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Trump supports the Second Amendment and is opposed to gun control in general. He supports fixing the federal background check system so that criminal and mental health records are always put into the system. Trump opposes legalizing recreational marijuana but supports legalizing medical marijuana. 

Although Trump has stated that he supports "traditional marriage," he has described himself as a "friend" of the LGBT community and shown uninterest in reversing the June 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Trump has demonstrated his support of capital punishment both through his campaign speeches about killings of police officers, and through full-page ads he purchased favoring capital punishment in New York during the 1989 Central Park jogger case.

References

Thoughts? --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that he is a "major ally of the LGBT community". Objective3000 (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm, yeah, maybe not a major ally it seems actually, but at least a supporter of the community following the Orlando attack. --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The text says, "described himself as a "friend" of the LGBT community," not that he is one. Seems alright to me. Factchecking what Trump says is beyond the scope of the article. TFD (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"friend" of the LGBT community," is not a political position—it's nothing more than campaign fodder on the heels of a massacre. Also, we can't sanitize his stated position on same sex marriage.- MrX 14:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I restored "Friend", because his statements about his positions basically are his positions (plus any statement a politician makes about themselves is inherently self-serving). I also left in his actual comment about the Court ruling to provide context and balance. I think, since we have no history of policymaking in this area, leaving it to his own words (though they can be contradictory) is the best way to keep NPOV. Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. If anyone can find an RS offering third-party analysis of his stance that might be relevant too. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess I can live with that, somewhat grudgingly.- MrX 15:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

He also says he is a friend to Hispanics, they love him and he will get their vote. It's meaningless. Objective3000 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

All public statements by a politician are meaningless posturing. Unfortunately, since Trump is only recently a politician, we don't have a voting record to cite. The best we can do is summarize his statements and summarize analyses of his statements because that's all we have. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Friend to Hispanics is fine so long as we use proper weight, for example, "Trump has been accused to racist comments towards Hispanices, but he says he is their friend." We do that with even when the subject is clearly not telling the truth. BTW, one of Trump's best friends, Roy Cohn, was gay. TFD (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Zing!- MrX 17:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

And Roy Cohn denied it. You can say he claims to be a friend to the LGBT community. But, there is no evidence that he is. Objective3000 (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• I object to CFredkin's removal of this longstanding content which appropriately defines Trumps stated position (certainly a lot better than the "I'm a friend of X" statements). I request that it be restored.- MrX 17:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The "Trump has stated that he supports "traditional marriage." part is duplicated verbatim in that paragraph's first sentence, but the rest is relevant and I have no objection to restoring it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course that part should go, but not the rest of it and several sources. His moderate stance on LGBT issues appropriately summarizes his position.- MrX 17:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The following sentence appears verbatim in the previous para as well: Some political analysts describe Trump as a "moderate" regarding LGBT rights.CFredkin (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing redundant infobox signature

To make the infoboxes more concise, I'm removing the redundant signatures here and at Hillary Clinton.

On 25 August 2015, Spartan7W said that all series templates for US politicians include a signature if available. Because the template for Gary Johnson has no signature yet, and because he's the third most popular politician in the US at this time, such practice or policy doesn't appear to be in use at this time; for convenience, however, we can leave the templates as is and edit the infoboxes instead. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I've previously said that it looks silly to have two identical huge signatures. And it's still silly. So good luck erasing one of them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed you did. So I might as well erase Bernie's redundant signature too (thereby avoiding any suggestion of partisanship). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hold your horses, @Dervorguilla:. There is no SVG file available for Johnson's signature. Were there one, and if one is provided, it should surely be added. Until then, it is fine for it to be absent if no such file exists. Additionally, your assertion that Gary Johnson is the 3rd most popular is preposterous. I would say President Obama is more popular than either Clinton or Trump, and don't forget Bernie Sanders, etc.   Spartan7W §   04:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

<snark>Trump doesn't like losers, Spartan7W, nor do I. And Sanders is such a loser he couldn't even beat Clinton!!! So now he's back to being the most popular politician in Vermont.</snark>

But you're correct about Obama. I should have said, the third most popular political candidate in the US at this time.

Meanwhile my edits at Hillary and Bernie just got reverted. <snark>I guess that makes both of them losers.</snark>

Johnson's signature is available, Spartan7W. So is Stein's. (You'd just need to get their consent.) Of the four US politicians nominated for national office, two have had a signature added to their WP page; meanwhile the election's less than six months away. At this point the (hypothesized) policy isn't getting applied uniformly, but no one seems to be worrying about it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC) 08:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I reverted those edits because they broke years and years worth of consensus, a consensus which was just recently challenged with no success on this very page only a month ago.   Spartan7W §   04:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is the page section you're talking about, Spartan7W:

Signature

...The signature has been in the article for nearly 6 1/2 years and obviously enjoys tacit consensus. A single person cannot overturn that by claiming that it's suddenly recognized as contentious WP:BLP content... - Mr 12:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Meaning: The signature (singular) has been in the article for years, enjoys consensus, and doesn't violate WP:BLP.

...The idea is, there has never been conflict with use of SVG copies of a signature before, and the practice is many years old and has massive consensus... Spartan7W 01:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Meaning: What has consensus is the use of SVG copies.

...According to WP guidelines, if ... a secondary source has re-published [an LP’s] signature, then it is acceptable to place it on their WP article... The signature has been up for many years... <> Alt lys er svunnet hen 11:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Meaning: The WP guideline says it's OK to put Trump's signature in the article. And it's been in the article for years.

But:

• The use of multiple copies of the signature has indeterminate consensus or no consensus.

• All but one of the multiple copies is contentious content per MOS:INTRO.

• No WP guideline says it's OK to put multiple copies of a signature in an article.

Rather, WP:SLP says:

nutshell: There is no consensus to reproduce signatures in Wikipedia articles...

And MOS:INTRO says:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points ... in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

The way I see it, one copy looks twice as concise as two. I think most readers would see it that way. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Your fixation on this perplexes me. There is no file for either Johnson or Stein's signatures in the commons, therefore it is impossible to include those candidates' signatures in the infobox since no file is available. Their permission is not required, it is a public domain deal, you just need somebody who can find a copy of their signature and vectorize it, a skill I lack. Otherwise I'd do it. There is no issue with the application of this policy. No consensus policy exists which outright demands the uniform use of a file even if no file exists. So this isn't an issue of failure to include a signature, its a simple lack of files. Also I have no idea what you're talking about with "No WP guideline says it's OK to put multiple copies of a signature in an article.".   Spartan7W §   14:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the backstory, Spartan7W:

There were two copies of a subject's signature in an article lead. I removed the first, supposedly "to make the infobox more concise."

In context, I appear to be suggesting that the infobox should be made more concise to make the lead more concise (per MOS:INTRO, lead section as a "concise version" of article).

You restored, saying, "It is VERY long-standing policy to include signatures in the infobox".

In context, you appear to be suggesting that it's WP policy to include a signature in an infobox whether or not it's included elsewhere in the lead.

If so, can you tell me which WP policy you have in mind? --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that we simply remove the signature from the navbox for this page only, as I recently did at Hillary Clinton?- MrX 22:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks. I hope the pi template is/was useful. But regardless, it's a job well done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it was, thank you. - MrX 22:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done- MrX 22:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

[prolonged ovation] --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Text logo

X: Can we lose the text logo too? Hillary and Bernie seem to be doing fine without one, as do Johnson and Stein. Also Obama and Biden (both of whom appear to have signed their articles twice...) --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The text logo only occurs in the navbox, as far as I can tell, so I favor leaving it as-is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

True, it's only in the navbox. But the navbox is in the lead section, so MOS:INTRO ought to apply, wouldn't you think?

Also, none of the relevant Infobox person templates include a logo parameter. So I'm starting to wonder whether a BLP should include a business logo in the lead.

Also, two of the parameters in the Trump Text Logo file § Summary call false information (rather, unsourced pseudo-information), so the file's likely to get "aggressively deleted" soon per Jimbo (May 16) and BLP. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC) 03:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The Trump_Text_Logo.svg file has some erroneously sourced false information in the filedesc. I've yet to find a source that supports the description call or author call.
So, the file itself is getting removed per WP:BLPSOURCES and Wales posting to WikiEN-l, May 16, 2016 ("Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"). --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The Trump_Text_Logo filedesc says:

Description call: "Used on Trump's personal website"
Author call: "Donald J. Trump"

I believe Mr. Wales might be inclined to disparage that as "unsourced pseudo-information"...

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively...

Sounds good to me! --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This is being discussed at the talk page for the navbox, so let's please keep the discussion in one place, there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Logo confusion: 'Executive Summary'
The Trump Series template may confuse some readers insofar as it blurs the distinctions between the logos used by The Trump Organization, Donald J. Trump for President Inc., and Trump personally.

The text font in the campaign logo used by Donald J. Trump for President Inc. is Franklin Gothic, whereas the text font in the logo Trump uses on his airplane is Arial Black.

See Text Logo Template talk and File talk. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think readers will be confused, even slightly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Alma Mater

Anyone know why his alma mater isn't showing up in the infobox?CFredkin (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced curly brackets.- MrX 17:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!CFredkin (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Wharton University?

I object to this edit:

“ Trump graduated from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton University in 1968. ”

There's no such thing as "Wharton University".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone fixed that. There is another mention of Wharton in the Early Life section that said "Wharton School of Business." I changed that to use the official name of the school at the time he attended. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

New photo

The current lead photo is from 2015. Could we use this new recent photo from June 28, 2016 of Trump at a rally in Phoenix? It fits with his current political image and he doesn't look so orange/pissed off like in the other image from August 2015.

Donald Trump
File:Trump in Phoenix 2016.png Trump at a campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona, June 2016
Born	Donald John Trump (1946-06-14) June 14, 1946 Queens, New York City, U.S.

I like the current photo better. It's lit better, I think it looks more like him, and he seems thoughtful to me, not pissed off. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Why would it look more like him, because he's not smiling? And I think this picture is equally well-lit. It's been 11 months since that event, and he was still 69 years old in the old picture. I really think it's time for a change. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The image is blurry, the color and lighting are bad, and his expression is unnatural. The current image is better.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The image is super high quality and there's absolutely zero blur. Trump actually smiling is not "unnatural." And in the current picture, his hair looks the same as his skin, that's what you call good color and lighting? I'd appreciate if you'd stop manipulating the truth just because you like some other picture better. The new picture is definitely superior. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The lighting is better in the current one. It uses a key light and two fills in what looks like professional lighting probably for TV. The new one has fairly flat lighing, and has a low light shining up at his face, which tends to accentuate wrinkles and jowls. It also has some motion blur that blends the hair in with the face in an unflattering way. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You're literally talking about microdifferences in lighting and coloring. Have you noticed he looks like a damn Oompa Loompa in the current picture? His skin does not AT ALL look like that in real life. The saturation is ridiculous and the quality is horrible. You can't even zoom in on the picture it's so small. --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

He looks even worse in the picture you suggested. What kind of expression is that? The current photo has a more natural expression. Why do people make such a big deal over a "smile"? Just because he isn't smiling doesn't mean he is pissed off. TL565 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump smiling is not "unnatural", what is this image that you are creating him out to be? How about being a bit more neutral? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That is not a natural smile. He looks more distracting which ironically makes is less "neutral". Where did this idea come from that not smiling makes it not neutral? The current photo has been used for months and no one has really complained about it. TL565 (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Another lie! Can you please take a look in the archives of talk? There have been so many discussions on changing the image in the past few months. And you literally just described a natural smile, and if you don't Trump smiling naturally in a picture, that's ridiculous. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Give me a break. Yes, it was discussed before and the current photo was still left alone. I guarantee you no one smiles like that when they get their photo taken. You are just mad because no one likes your crappy photo suggestion. Again, who cares if he isn't smiling. Many Trump supporters on here have said they have no problem with the current photo. TL565 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You are being incredibly rude to me, do you realise that? All I did was suggest a picture, and you're over here calling it "crappy" and claiming nobody has complained about the picture (which is a lie). Sorry that I don't think it's appropriate for some horrible picture of Donald with saturation turned 20x looking more orange than an oompa loompa to be the main picture. It's ridiculous. --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The current top picture is not very good, and I think lots of editors would support a better picture, but I don't think this particular proposed picture is it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks man, at least somebody with manners here. --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I never "claimed" no one at all complained about the photo in the past. I said if it lasted this long, there were not a whole lot of complaints about it in the first place. A new photo has been discussed many times before, it doesn't mean people were complaining about the current photo. TL565 (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You literally said "no one has really complained about it." Just stop lying already. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No one has ever complained about it like you have. Stop being a damn crybaby! TL565 (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

BTW, you should not be talking about manners. You came off as very aggressive in your first few posts calling your suggestion "superior" and peoples reasons against it "ridiculous" because the current photo looked like a "damn Oompa Loompa", so save it. TL565 (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

And I'm being rude to whom? Just stating my opinion, I really do think he looks like ridiculously orange in that picture, and he doesn't look like that at all in real life, despite what the media tries to push. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This post wasn't rude? http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=726213606&oldid=726213329 I like how suddenly your accepting to other peoples opinions when that wasn't the case in your earlier posts. You were giving more than just your opinion by accusing others of "manipulating the truth" because they liked the current picture better. You did seem angry that people disagreed with your photo, which is why I said what I said. Anyway, it looks like the consensus is to stick with the current photo. I have no problem with Trump smiling, but this photo is not a good example of a good smile. TL565 (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• OMFG, this photo is bizarre! It is so unrecognizable and odd that it's hard to believe that it wasn't 'shopped to make Trump look like Fire Marshal Bill. In no way should this photo be used in any Wikipedia article.- MrX 17:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Hard to believe the photo suggestion is in good-faith. IHTS (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  It turns out this photo was significantly altered from the original, which can be found here. I'm nominating it for deletion.- MrX 21:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No wonder it looked like he had two ears on one side! There should be no photoshopped images period, especially really bad ones. How can people think it's ok to drastically alter a photo and pass it up as genuine is beyond me. TL565 (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolute garbage! I just figured out this picture was made by taking the face of Trump in this photo, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_(27150701414).jpg and pasting it on to the face of this photo, https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/27762971255/in/album-72157669951315605/ (notice the background) all while making other serious alterations to the photo. Seriously, who does this? ThiefOfBagdad needs to be blocked on commons. TL565 (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"Attempted" assassination

This is the first time I've heard of an event like this. Does it deserve mention in the article? [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

There would be a case for it, at least, since it was widely reported. Not worth more than a brief mention, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator. There's a whole subsection in the Gerald Ford article titled "Assassination attempts", and a separate article titled Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento. Likewise, in the Harry S. Truman article, there's a subsection titled "White House renovations; assassination attempt" and a separate article titled Attempted assassination of Harry S. Truman. So, it's not necessarily inappropriate to mention at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

If we mention it, "People accused of crime" applies. We cannot use terms such as attempted assassination. TFD (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

And it's pretty goofy anyhow. What assassin arrives without a weapon with the idea of finding one at the scene? It might make sense to wait for more details. Objective3000 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

New Gage photo as lead photo?

It looks great and it's a lot more recent than the current 2015 photo. Thoughts? --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That's better than the one a couple sections up, but it still looks kind of screwy to me. If I recall, the temperature that day was an extremely rare 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Even if the rally was indoors, he looks like he just walked out of an oven.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"Screwy" is probably the adjective I would use as well. It just really isn't very recognizable as Trump. It almost looks like Pat Robertson.- MrX 17:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The photo is so bad it doesn't even look real. IHTS (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Here is the RFC that we had in March. The photo at right was opposed by only one editor, and supported by two, as the top image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep pushing this horrible photo? It's even worse than the one originally proposed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In case anyone is unaware, William S. Saturn was the one editor who opposed this as the top image.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

There were many photos to vote on and no one was told to oppose expressly the ones they did not favor. I'm not sure why you think this photo is so great.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Compared to the present top image, this one has a smile instead of a frown, and not merely a tight-lipped smile, but a full smile with teeth. Moreover, unlike the lighting of the present top image, the neck is well-lit (the darkly shadowed neck in the present top image gives the impression of someone wearing a Trump mask). The microphone is larger in the present top image, and the head is cockeyed instead of straight. Unlike the image at right, the present top image has bags under eyes, as if the subject did not get enough sleep, and the shirt collar is partly darkly shadowed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

But his eyes are almost closed, his head is slanted somewhat, and he doesn't look like he's smiling. It looks like he's in pain or in mid-sentence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it was perfect, only better, like the image at James Dean. How about if we let others opine?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

Since we're posting our favorite Trump photos. I'll post mine to the left Someone moved it below yours. Color and lighting are perfect and the subject has a very natural and neutral expression.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

He looks possessed/demonic. (And why is his tie defying gravity?) IHTS (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

His right arm is raised. See original.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course. But you miss my point: When you crop like that, the reader cannot know or surmise that that is the reason. IHTS (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Eyes are squinted, it is no smile it's mid-speech, looks like a "Candidate Ken" doll for Barbie. IHTS (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Although Gage is a talented photographer, this is not a good shot. There is still alot of time left in this election season to get a good smiling photo [11] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Please Note: ThiefofBagdad has also attempted to propose this move at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#New Gage photo as Trump photo?, where it has been demonstrated that this is a badly photoshopped image: sompare these two photos here and here they are clearly the same image with the mic removed, also if you look at the eyes in the photoshop job we can actually see the black ovals that have been added. It definitely should not be used. Ebonelm (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• I prefered the microphone. I'll take your word about looking into the eyes. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC) p.s. I think ""Candidate Ken" doll for Barbie" has got real legs (although, admittedly, they are plastic).

"In 2002 Trump supported the invasion of Iraq" claim not supported by the source cited

I just removed[12] a claim that was not supported by the source cited. The source says "...a 2002 interview with Howard Stern in which Trump said, 'Yeah, I guess so,' when asked whether he supported the invasion", which does not support the claim "In 2002 Trump supported the invasion of Iraq". A claim of support needs more than a single "I guess so" in one interview, especially considering the nature of the Stern radio show.

It's a good reference though, and would be a nice addition to the article if we use it to support claims that are actually in the reference. Here is the ref ready to cut and paste (be sure to add an accessdate) if someone wishes to use it correctly:

<ref name="Noah Bierman LA Times">{{cite magazine |url=http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-fact-check-20160622-snap-htmlstory.html |title=How Donald Trump's speech attacking Hillary Clinton compares with the facts |last=Bierman |first=Noah |work=[[LA Times]] |date=June 23, 2016 |accessdate=}}</ref>

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

One editor (CFredkin) reverted my removal of the unsourced claim without responding to the above (see the section after this one) http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/ has an analysis of what Trump said and when. The short version is this: Zero evidence that Trump supported or opposed the Iraq war before the March 19, 2003 invasion, plenty of evidence that he opposed it starting in 2004.

Also see:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/21/donald-trumps-baseless-claim-that-the-bush-white-house-tried-to-silence-his-iraq-war-opposition-in-2003/
• http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/06/donald-trump/donald-trump-overstates-his-early-opposition-iraq-/
• http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/21/trump_responds_to_howard_stern_interview_who_knows_what_was_in_my_head.html
• http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/10/media/donald-trump-howard-stern/

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

For those who like to hear things in context:

• Original Howard Stern show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77P6fxa2KOs (qoute starts at 1 minute 30 seconds)
• Trump commenting on Howard Stern show quote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQIXpZhukQo

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

I've restored the previous long-standing language in this section. I believe the recent edits were WP:undue. Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE please seek consensus here before restoring the edits.CFredkin (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE says "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material" You just restored material that I deleted as being unsourced. The burden of proof is on you to provide a source, not on me. Also, in the section directly above this, I did seek consensus. You failed to respond, choosing instead to revert. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my reversion of your edit was unintentional. I've restored the original content with the exception of your edit.CFredkin (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC) After botching that edit as well, I've decided to take a break here for today.CFredkin (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the edit I was referring to at the beginning of this section.CFredkin (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually the content, which has been restored again, is not consistent with Trump's most recent statement on the subject. Here is a more recent view. I'm restoring the previous, long-standing language, which reflects the situation concisely.CFredkin (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again, please do not restore the disputed content unless/until there is consensus to do so, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.CFredkin (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Red herring. If you cut out every bit where he isn't consistent there will be soon a blank page.--TMCk (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I'm suggesting. The existing content notes his changing stance on the subject.CFredkin (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand, CFredkin , why you are removing Trump's own statements on foreign policy. This page needs to record the man's positions. He objectively called for 20,000 to 30000 troops. Can you refute that? Did he deny that? It's public record, documented. Then you play the UNDUE card? What the heck? This is just Trump's position: some people like it, some don't. There's nothing UNDUE in reporting what he said about the Middle East. It doesn't make him look good or bad: it's a serious policy position and millions of people would agree with it. In any case, it isn't our job to agree or disagree, but to try to elaborate what his political positions are. I feel that you are making unreasonable edits here, as opposed to contributing. Instead of deleting, try fleshing out Mr. Trump's foreign policy. You keep speaking about "consensus" while going against it. --Smilo Don (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Ahh--just followed your link to the USNews piece where he does indeed refute that 30000 troop statement. I stand corrected. However, I think it's important to point out that he proposed this and then rejected it. We are trying to create a record of his political positions. Trump's own attempts to, perhaps, feel out a Middle East foreign policy are important. Honestly, if a person is trying to understand, or make an informed decision about the election, they need to know a candidate's views, even if those views are changing. --Smilo Don (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Structure of Business Sections

I think the organization of the business related sections is kind of a mess. I'd like to restructure the current sections 2-4 (in looking at the ToC) as follows:

Business career

Real estate

Bankruptcies of four business

Beauty Pageants

Branding and licensing

Football and boxing

Golf courses

Investments

Net worth

Taxes

Trump University

I've put Real estate first since that's how he got his start, but otherwise kept the alpha order of the sections. I don't plan to remove any content if we make this change, unless otherwise noted. Any objections?CFredkin (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose.

(A) Per comment by Castncoot at Talk:Order of subsections, "there has to be flow according to context and meaning, rather than, of all things, the first letter of the topic."

(B) Per MOS:BODY (names and orders for section headings), the usual practice is to order the sections based on precedent. Namely, on the precedent of some article that seems similar to the subject article. But no article of any kind has been cited (or found) as precedent for using a mixed alphabetic/nonalphabetic style.

(C) Some sections of the Mitt Romney and Bill Gates articles seem rather similar to this section. Neither uses any kind of mixed alphabetic/nonalphabetic style; yet both are easy to navigate. See, for example, Mitt Romney:

Business career

Management consulting

Minor political issues

Private equity

Personal wealth

(D) Per MOS:BODY, contributors are advised to seek community consensus before establishing a section order.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not committed to alpha order for the sections, please note that I put "Real Estate" first. The previous version was in alpha order so I assumed that was intentional. I largely retained the previous ordering because it also made some sense to me: putting the section on real estates bankruptcies after the section on real estate and putting the sections on Taxes and Net Worth toward the end. Since Trump University has been in the new recently, it made some sense to me for it to be at the end, but perhaps it should be moved up with the other businesses.CFredkin (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Presbyterian in infobox

Someone added "religion=Presbyterian" to the infobox, but that edit got reverted, so it should be discussed here. It is present in the article, and well-sourced, and is a notable aspect of Trump's public image. The article should be in Category:American Presbyterians as well. StAnselm (talk)

@Guy Macon:, you mentioned the listing requirements - which one(s) do you think this fails? StAnselm (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Trump's supposed Christianity is not a defining characteristic of him as a public person--not even of him as a candidate for the presidency. That he calls himself Christian is, but that's not easily said in an infobox. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Here on WP we only ever go with what religion people call themselves. The article does a reasonable job of explaining the nuance. We have to take it in a binary fashion - either one is Presbyterian or one is not. Trump is Presbyterian. So the question is, is it important? I would say that it is, as evidenced by the references in the article. StAnselm (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a lot simpler than real life, then. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The current consensus on this page is to have it in - this was discussed in April, and the result was "Overwhelming consensus to identify him as a Presbyterian ". StAnselm (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

We should leave it out. Trump's mother was from Scotland and Trump was baptised presbyterian. But there is no evidence he identifies with the church. What has he said about Calvinist predestination? TFD (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't have to say anything about predestination. Lots of Presbyterians don't think about it much. What he has said is "I'm a Protestant, I'm a Presbyterian. And you know I've had a good relationship with the church over the years..." StAnselm (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories and found that nobody had any citations supporting some of the requirements. I also did my own search and found nothing. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder, here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

• Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability. Huckabee and Carson meet this requirement. Trump and Clinton do not.

• Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes, nor can it override any of the policies and guidelines in this list.

• Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious? Trump does not meet this requirement.

• Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is. Trump meets this requirement, having self-identified.

• Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original) Trump doesn't even come close to meeting this requirement.

• Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic. Again, Trump doesn't even come close to meeting the requirement.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (many now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election, and have since moved on to other BLP articles with religion in the infoboxes. Show me the citations proving that Wikipedia's requirements have been met and I will gladly change my position. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Guy objects to every religion, except Pastafarianism.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Not true. Look, for example, at the Mike Huckabee article. There were citations showing that Wikipedia's requirements were met and so I supported inclusion of religion in the infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Guy, it looks like you're just copying and pasting comments you made elsewhere. You haven't answered my question and it's not even clear that you've read this article.StAnselm (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

And you just reverted without providing the sources I requested. Do you imagine that just because I asked for sources on other pages that you don't have to provide any on this one? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, since the current overwhelming consensus is to include religion in the infobox on this page, the onus is on you to provide evidence that it should not be. StAnselm (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I just did. It doesn't meet the requirements in the Wikipedia policies and guidelines I listed above. Do you have any sources showing that it does? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Surely doesn't seem to meet the requirements to me. His own church said he wasn't an active member. I can't think of any sources where he talked about religion prior to his candidacy. He is not a major figure, if a figure at all, in this religion. It is simply not a defining characteristic. Objective3000 (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Per the Village Pump Policy consensus on Religion in infoboxes it clearly should not be in in the infobox. His religion is well covered in the article text. We really need to move forward on removing the religion field from the template itself, per the RFC result. It's wasteful to rehash this on countless bio pages. Alsee (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

But then what will Guy do?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• This should be removed from the infobox, per the site-wide RfC. It's permissible to add this parameter to infoboxes for religious leaders, like Roman Catholic cardinals or the Dalai Lama, not for random politicians. It might be permissible for a politician like Jesse Jackson campaigning on an explicitly theocratic platform, but not for a generally secular politician like Trump, who is about a much a religious figure as I am a space alien military commander. (Which reminds me, If I don't see more groveling and surrender, I will vaporize your puny moon, Hoomans.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• I personally welcome the enlightened rule of SMcCandlish and the other space aliens... --Guy Macon (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• You have to be careful w/ "rules" -- they are mostly inflexible things; pushing "rules" leads inherently to misapplication. Recurring patterns of specific incidents can sometimes lead to pretty good rules; starting w/ rules then finding specifics to change or justify them, is a mistaken strategy. IHTS (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Macon's On Religion looks mighty authoritative to me! --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Disputed change to opening paragraph - inserting ideological position

User:Midnightblueowl inserted right wing populist to the first paragraph. I believe this is a contentious edit that per DS should be discussed at talk page first, and have asked MBO to self-revert. It's not standard to include ideological position to the opening paragraph (see Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama), and it seems pointy. For the opening paragraph it's enough to write Republican. Ideological position would fit better in the paragraph that describes his political platform. I should note that not all political scientists agree that Trump is a populist, for instance Cas Mudde insists that he is not, but it's most probably a majority who will define him as a populist, and maybe that's a consensus view. Iselilja (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Iselilja, I don't see why this is very controversial at all. BTW, whether this is truly an "ideological" position is another question, and sure, Hillary Clinton's article doesn't say anything like that--but she's a regular Democrat, as middle of the road as Barack Obama was. The better comparison is to Bernie Sanders's article, whose lead has him as progressive and as a democratic socialist. All sourced, of course. Anyway, see below. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• First, I did not believe that this edit would be controversial, so went straight ahead with inclusion without bringing it to Talk first; clearly, I was wrong about that. That being said, I still stand by the addition and urge its re-integration and continued inclusion. As for the claim that "It's not standard to include ideological position to the opening paragraph", that is easily disputed. The articles on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are cited, but I can just as easily point to a whole range of articles on political biographies that do contain a mention of the individual's ideological commitment in the lede (Fidel Castro, Vladimir Lenin, Muammar Gaddafi, Nelson Mandela, Mao Zedong, Bill Clinton, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Boris Johnson, Ken Livingstone... need I go on). Indeed, it seems more common than not, and thus I believe that on this point alone, Trump's article should have a mention of his broad ideological position within the lede. Saying 'Republican' is not enough, but the American Republican Party is such a broad church, with many in the party being very openly hostile to Trump and his ideological positions; we need greater specifics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)