Talk:Donald Trump

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Lawsuit accusing him of raping 13-y.o. girl

Given the potentially contentious nature of these accusations, I'm not going to add this to the article myself, but I think there ought to be a discussion here on the talk page over whether and how the subject of this lawsuit should be covered in the article. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The lawsuit exists. But, it doesn't appear to have been picked up by reliable sources. Objective3000 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

At least at this point, this is very fringe and poorly-sourced. It does not belong in this bio.- MrX 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing "fringe" about it. It's simply not notable at all so far and thus we keep it out per BLP.--TMCk (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It is fringe in that is only being covered by QUESTIONABLE sources, outside of the mainstream.- MrX 22:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No. There is indeed a lawsuit and the allegation is officially out there. It certainly isn't enough for inclusion tho.--TMCk (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

[ http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

We seem to all be coming to the same conclusion.:)Objective3000 (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. :) Either that or we are really all sockpuppets of Randy in Boise... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The lawsuit has now been covered by Lisa Bloom of The Huffington Post [1]. The article is marked as a blog post, though the author is a noted columnist and civil rights attorney, so it probably meets our reliability and verifiability criteria per WP:NEWSBLOG. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

An opinion piece on a blog which makes no attempt to be unbiased does not satisfy WP:BLP. WP:REDFLAG specifically states that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", including "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". When multiple mainstream media (not blogs) give coverage and analysis, then it might be fit for inclusion (keeping WP:UNDUE in mind as well). Right now nobody is talking about it, so it would be a BLP violation to put it in the article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It's going to get in, and there's no unbiased editorial oversight on this BLP subject. So much worse is on its way... Doc talk 07:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, admins who attempt to keep this subject "neutral" will themselves be further "subjugated". So get on board before it's too late. Doc talk 07:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Further, non-blog, non-opinion coverage is now available from Uproxx (What You Should Know About The Child Rape Case Against Donald Trump), Complex (How the Child Rape Lawsuit Against Trump Could Hurt His and Clinton’s Campaigns) and Democracy Now! (Trump Faces Lawsuit Accusing Him of Raping 13-Year-Old Girl). I'm not terribly familiar with the first two sources, but the third is definitely reliable. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we are anywhere near the level of coverage that would support including something like this. All we actually know is that a civil lawsuit has been filed, and that fact has not been picked up by mainstream sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Aren't lawsuits themselves notable?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Only if they get significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Lawsuits are very common, especially against Trump. At this moment there are many, many civil suits pending involving Trump. There have been 1,300 people suing him and 1,900 people being sued by him over the past 30 years, including 70 new cases in the past year, at least 50 of which are still active. [2] These are from his real estate, construction, and other business dealings. Subcontractors saying they weren't paid, this kind of thing. None of them rate a mention here. This (suspiciously timed) lawsuit is getting a little coverage, but not currently at the level or from the sources that would make it notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) is totally biased against Trump. Reliable? Funny. IHTS (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Tired rehash of "Remember when X raped and murdered a 13 year old girl?" Completely unreliable and unsuitable per WP:RS and WP:BLPCRIME. It would need significant coverage, on the order of Bill Cosby's allegations to be added. --DHeyward (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to this, by any chance? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I found two sources that seem to pass the test: the the International Business Times (which is generally regarded as mainstream and reliable), and Sputnik (owned by the Russian government, which is hardly biased against Trump; Putin and Trump are rather chummy, in fact). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as impressive enough for a BLP. If it hits a couple of major U.S. reliable news sources, it could be included with great care. It's very delicate material. Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

U.S. sources? That seems really very biased. International sources should hold more weight when considering notability of something happening in the U.S., I would say, by indicating international attention is being paid to the matter. (this doesn't indicate my opinion on inclusion, just commenting on the U.S. vs. international coverage sub-thread) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

IBTimes does not agree that it "is generally regarded as mainstream", FiredanceThroughTheNight. See IBT Media, 2015 Media Kit: "Why do we exist? International Business Times aims to help the development of the global economy ... by closely following market trends and key events that are not necessarily covered by mainstream media..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, The Guardian is certainly mainstream and reliable, although whether it is biased or not is another question. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that comment about IBTimes is playing with words. They do not say they are not mainstream media. We also have News.com.au [3], the Independent [4], the Daily Mail UK [5], the Daily Mirror [6], the Daily Beast [7], AOL [8] etc. It just seems that the US media is largely ignoring the story. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I came here to see if there was any more information about the lawsuit and was really surprised that it wasn't included already. It is very relevant and there are multiple sources, so why isn't it in? Neosiber (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Unlike with criminal cases, there is no real bar to filing a civil suit. The subject of this suit is particularly sensational. And according to this source there are some valid concerns about whether the case is legitimate.CFredkin (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but why not mention it with caveats? Plenty of reputable news sources have.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I did already add a mention of Johnson's lawsuit to Jeffrey Epstein's article (he was also accused in the lawsuit). It doesn't seem to have stirred up any controversy, either. One would think that because Epstein is already a convicted sex offender, the barrier for inclusion of any further accusations should be much lower. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: Several hours ago, another woman (Jill Harth) also went public with sexual assault accusations against Trump. Unlike Johnson, Harth was not a minor at the time. See [9] and [10]. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously that's not as important as the size of his signature...--Jack Upland (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Do not include, unless it gets a lot more widespread coverage than it has now. Currently it is being reported by a few foreign sources, a few not-exactly-neutral domestic sources, and lawnewz.com which broke the story. This is not enough coverage to include something with BLP implications like this. Maybe it will get there, if Trump fights back strongly (a practice which tends to attract more coverage than the original accusation). But a civil suit, from more than 20 years ago, withdrawn a few weeks after it was filed? Not enough. (Even if the coverage does increase it will be hard to present this information neutrally. The incidents supposedly happened in 1993. She filed a lawsuit four years later, 1997, in the midst of a separate business-related lawsuit by her partner against Trump; and she dropped her suit a few weeks later, after the partner's suit was settled. This is according to the Guardian. I don't know about you, but I find this timing sufficiently questionable to affect her credibility.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's up to us to act as detective and assess the credibility of allegations. I also don't see the problem with "foreign" sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I would like to gauge consensus for adding "Trump is widely regarded as populist." to the lead.- MrX 18:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

A few sources

"It’s not supposed to hail from Brooklyn or Queens, never mind Burlington, Vermont, or midtown Manhattan. But that’s where the two reigning populists [Trump and Sanders] of the 2016 cycle call home.¶ You could say that Donald Trump, the son of a rich real-estate developer in Queens, was always a populist at heart."
— National review

"Trump resembles some of the great populists of yesteryear."
— National review

"Donald Trump’s campaign has been constantly referred to as a populist insurgency within the Republican Party, consisting as it does of an anti-Washington message designed to stoke working-class anxieties. "
— Slate

"They (trump and Sanders] are starting more conventional rivals by surging in the polls thanks to two very different strains of a classical American political movement: populism"
— NBC - Meet the Press

"Populism, especially as it manifests itself in the pushback against globalization, immigration and the political elites, can be found on both sides of the Atlantic. Indeed, many see the American version of it in the likes of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump."
— CNBC

"This is where the populism of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump overlap. Both ran on very similar claims that the elite are in it for themselves."
— National Review

"With Donald Trump as the presumptive presidential nominee, we are witnessing a populist hijacking of one of the United States’ great political parties."
— Washington Post

"The irony about Trump’s supposed “populist” ascendancy is, of course, that he is deeply unpopular, the least popular candidate of either of the major U.S. political parties on record."
— Newsweek

"A key part of Trump's strategy is to ensure high turnout of white, working class Republican voters. But he's also looking to capture a segment of the Democratic base with his populist economic message."
— CNN

" His populism cuts across party lines like few others before him. Like his fans, Trump is indifferent to the issues of sexual orientation that animate the declining religious right, even to the point of defending Planned Parenthood. Trump’s platform combines positions that are shared by many populists but are anathema to movement conservatives—a defense of Social Security, a guarantee of universal health care, economic nationalist trade policies."
— Politico

"Today, Donald Trump's campaign benefits from a similar populist appeal to beleaguered, white, blue-collar voters -- his key constituency."
— CBS News

"Certains «populistes» comme Trump ou Johnson sont millionnaires.¶ Boris Johnson et Beppe Grillo, Marine Le Pen et Donald Trump: tous sont qualifiés de populistes."
— Le Figaro

"Surtout, Sanders ne peut être considéré comme un populiste, même si ses propositions sont radicales à l’aune des critères de la politique américaine. Trump, lui, au contraire, est un populiste."
— Le Monde

"Yet there are much broader meanings in use that better fit Mr Trump. Michael Kazin, author of “The Populist Persuasion”, comes close when he describes populism as “a language whose speakers conceive of ordinary people as a noble assemblage not bounded narrowly by class, view their elite opponents as self-serving and undemocratic, and seek to mobilize the former against the latter”."
— The Economist

"In his political style, there is hardly any ambiguity: Trump is as populist as it gets."
— New York

"Populism is a stance and a rhetoric more than an ideology or a set of positions. It speaks of a battle of good against evil, demanding simple answers to difficult problems. (Trump: “Trade? We’re gonna fix it. Health care? We’re gonna fix it.”)"
— The New Yorker

"But it wasn't until Donald Trump came along that the populist base of the Republican Party found the right mouthpiece for all its grievances."
— NPR

"Paradoxically, the term most often used to describe Trump, both in the U.S. and abroad, is possibly the most problematic: populism."
— The Washington Post

"What if Trump turns up the volume on a populist message while the Democrats run a more cautious campaign?"
— The Nation

"Trump may yet turn out to be a fairly conventional American populist when it comes to his policy views, but he’s already proved revolutionary in his ability to create—and then manipulate—the media platforms that enable his politics."
— Politico

Poll

1. Support. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. Possible alternate wording: "Trump is generally regarded as a populist"? --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. I agree with the comments of Iselilja below.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support. -- Hard to argue with that much documentation. Objective3000 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC
3. Support per the abundance of diverse sources.- MrX 18:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose. The term "right-wing populist" is to be inferred from sources that don't directly use that specific term, per SYNTH. That's how we source things here. Doc talk 02:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Support —I would favour "right-wing populist", but this is a good first step. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Support. I don't think anybody really disputes that he is, in fact, a populist, and if they do then the wide variety of high quality sources seem to answer that definitively. The wording in question seems fine as well. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
7. Partly oppose I will note that most of the sources are from political commentators, and not from political scientists. The one source (Washington Post) that actually is from a political scientist, Cas Mudde, a leading scholar on right wing populism explicitly says Trump is not a populist "Trump himself doesn’t hold a populist radical right ideology". For more on Cas Mudde's view:The Power of Populism? Not Really! and As American as Trump. Though I agree that most polical commentators refer to him as a populist. The sentence ought to read: Trump is regarded by most political commentators as a populist, because MrX's proposal begs the question "regarded . I also believe this sentence should be inserted in the third paragraph in the lede, which deals with his political positions, and not in the first paragraph. Ideally we should insert something about Trump being an nontraditional politician that doesn't fit neatly into established categories in political science. Iselilja (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   I think these comments are excellent and I agree with them. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

8. Oppose As MelanieN pointed out, the sources show Trump has a populist campaign style, rather than being an actual populist. I would also point out that the term can have different meanings, so stating Trump is a populist without explaining what is meant would be unclear. TFD (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
9. Support, of course. Plenty of sourcing for the term, plenty of sourcing for "right-wing" too. And let's remind ourselves that "populist" really isn't a bad word. Calling Donald Trump a populist is not like calling Hillary Clinton a liberal, which is a very loaded word (unlike "progressive"). Anyway, whether you want to call him a populist or whether you want to say that his political persona is that of a populist (even if one who doesn't really invoke "the people" as much as he invokes himself) is really not so important; and I do agree that the third (political) paragraph is a good place. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
10. Support. Many reliable sources (in particular, sources that aren't opinion pieces) do clearly state that Trump's a populist. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
11. Oppose. As this source tells, "Trump isn't a populist but a demagogue. The difference being that a populist seeks political power to work for the good of the average citizen. A demagogue claims the same motivation, but is truly only interested in aggrandizing himself.". My very best wishes (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended comments

That's not the proposal on the table. Please scroll up to the top of the section and read again.- MrX 02:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC) I oppose the proposal on the table. Read my oppose again, maybe twice or three times. Doc talk 03:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Well, no. This proposal doesn't include "right wing".--TMCk (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC) You don't get it. (He's facetiously opposing a proposal lacking "right wing", since that's what WP-chaos wants, and WP-chaos seems to come out on top around here.) p.s. The poll is an unnecessary venture anyway. (Who would argue that Trump is not a populist candidate or running a populist campaign?! Duh.) IHTS (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC) If you're correct in your first assessment it still doesn't make sense considering his overall stance.--TMCk (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC) I may play "devil's advocate" in arguments sometimes and have a Sarcasm Level of 5. It's on my user page. IHTS gets it, and you do not. Stop commenting on this part of the thread and get to the real business at hand. Yeesh. Doc talk 05:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

If I can find at least as much documentation referring to Hillary as a "liberal" will all the supporters of this proposal support adding that term to the lede of her bio?CFredkin (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a proposal to make at her article, not this one. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. And good luck with it. A quick search finds just as many places arguing that she is not liberal (or progressive as per the more current term) as that she is. There is nowhere near the unanimity that there is for Trump being a populist - or for that matter, for Elizabeth Warren being a liberal. (Our article calls her progressive.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The sources I believe you're referring to seem to debate whether Clinton is liberal enough. The section on her Political Positions in her bio repeatedly refers to her as liberal. Currently the ledes for the bios for both candidates discuss their positions on key issues. If we're going to elevate political labels as important enough to include in Trump's bio, why not in Clinton's?CFredkin (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

To repeat: Sounds like a proposal to make at her article, not this one. Or are you trying to make some kind of backhanded comment about this article? Are you trying to say we should NOT include the term "populist" in the lede here, because there is not a comparable description in the lede of the Clinton article? If so, please say so directly in the spirit of this "poll". If not, please take this suggestion to the Clinton talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make (and the reason that I haven't weighed in officially on this proposal) is that I think a fair argument can be made either for or against the inclusion of well-sourced, widely-used labels in the lede for political candidates. But I feel strongly that it is only fair for the same standard to be applied in both articles for candidates for the same office, and I am quite certain that an equally strong argument can be made that the label "liberal" can be applied to Hillary (based on the points I made above). Also, I am anticipating that if this proposal is approved and I then make the same proposal on the Talk page for Hillary's bio, the scrum of very dedicated editors who guard that page will reject it out of hand. So I think it's fair to ask whether someone who weighs in in support of this proposal would be willing to support the same proposal on Hillary's bio.CFredkin (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no such Wikipedia standard, so appealing to it is futile. If you wish, you can propose a new guideline, or build consensus for changing the style manual, or start a WikiProject, but for now these content discussions are independent of each other. For my part, if you can quote at least 15 reliable sources, from a least two countries, including some left-leaning sources, that plainly describe Hillary as liberal, then I will support such a proposal with gusto.- MrX 21:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• It really *should* be "right wing populist".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  How about you find one source that uses that exact term besides the op-ed? Especially if you're going to put it in scare quotes? Doc talk 23:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is source currently used on this page, and it does describes Trump as a right-wing populist. If not exact wording, that is what this source actually tells. This is fair summary. If anyone wants to use exact wording, that would be a "post-fascist populist". Is it better? I think "right-wing" is actually more neutral and consistent with our BLP policy. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Using your logic, the existence of a reliable source calling Hillary "corrupt" would justify the inclusion of a statement in her bio calling her "unethical" because it doesn't sound as bad. Why don't you make that argument on her article and see what kind of reception you get.CFredkin (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is a cross post of a comment I made at the edit warring notice board. It seems relevant -- One google search and about five minutes lead me to the following articles, all of which support the description of Mr. Trump as a "right-wing populist": [11], [12], [13], and notably [14] the third paragraph of which begins: "Mr Trump is a rightwing populist." Whatever one thinks of Mr. Trump, the argument that he is not described in this way seems hard to sustain. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The RS list stating that he is running as a populist is impressive. I personally think it is obvious that he is running as a right-wing populist. But, this would require more documentation considering his constantly shifting and contradictory positions. Objective3000 (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this discussion starting with VolunteerMarek's post should really be in the section above. I'm not sure if an admin is required to make that move....CFredkin (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a very, very rigged area. Although it's "claimed" that consensus must be achieved before making any contentious edits, that is absolutely ignored. It's now been brought to my attention that consensus must be achieved before removing contentious BLP material that never had consensus in the first place[15]. So CON, NPOV, NOR and BLP are all reimagined when it comes to Trump. Congratulations. Doc talk 01:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If you really believe that, then you should run, not walk, to WP:ARCA and seek clarification or amendment.- MrX 02:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me. The pink banner that shows up at the top of the article when editing it is ignored. Poorly sourced, contentious material in a BLP is actually allowed to stand. Removing that material is prohibited. Do you need some more people to explain it to you? Doc talk 03:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

MrX is right, Doc. As are you. Per WP:BLPREMOVE, we remove (at once) any interpretation that the source itself doesn't clearly state. And we likewise remove any information that's sourced to an opinion piece (see WP:NEWSBLOG) or otherwise poorly sourced. (Or at least we're supposed to.) Sorry. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 07:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for you that while in theory that is what is supposed to happen, it is not happening here. This[16] remains in the article. It is very poorly sourced. Take a minute and look at it, then get back to me. Doc talk 05:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the information is poorly sourced, Doc. I'm accordingly removing it per WP:BLPREMOVE (and WP:NEWSBLOG). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it! Per policy! Now, I... probably should have mentioned that BLP policy has been a bit "muddied" recently regarding this area. I was threatened with a block, by the lord of this domain, were I to remove the exact same thing you did for the exact same reasons. I do hope that: a)You do not get blocked, and b) the poorly-sourced content is not restored for a third time without any attempt at achieving any sort of consensus, again. Cheers! :) Doc talk 07:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, Doc! :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, leading political scientist on right wing populism Cas Mudde does not regard Trump as a populist (but does regard him as right wing based on holding nativist and authoritarian views). I didn't have time to read through all the sources above, but are any of those sources political scientists? I also want to quote a bit from one of Mudde's articles:

"Trump, despite ample assertions to the contrary, is not a populist. Like European counterparts, he argues that “the elite” are uniformly corrupt. But unlike European politicians, he does not exalt the virtues of “the people.” Trump is not the Vox Populi (voice of The People) but the Vox Donaldus (voice of The Donald). Rather than claiming to offer common-sense solutions or follow the will of the people, Trump promises to make “better deals” because he knows “the art of the deal.” As he declared when he formed his 2016 exploratory committee, “I am the only one who can make America truly great again!”" (My bolding).

I would like to have Mudde's view briefly included in the body of the article because he is a leading scholar on right wing populism. Whether he represents a majority or minority view among political scientists (as opposed to journalists), I don't know, but even if minority view, it's a significant minority view. Iselilja (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes, The Washington Post opinion piece by Finchelstein and Piccato does not describe Trump as a "right-wing populist," it describes him as a "populist" and notes that he may be "showing us the future of U.S. right-wing politics." RW populism is a specfic ideology which is to the right of the traditional Right, in this case the Republican Party, and the authors do not say that. In fact they group Trump closest with Burlesconi and Hugo Chavez, neither of whom were right-wing populists. (Chavez was not even right-wing.)

Also, we do not know the degree of acceptance of their view or that of Mudde. What we do know is that Trump uses a populist campaign style, which btw is a constant feature in the U.S. since the American Revolution and Jeffersonian Democracy.

TFD (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Mudde does keep getting advertised as a "leading political scientist" or "leading scholar" or whatever. But he seems to keep getting so advertised on WP itself more than elsewhere. Just sayin'. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Cas Mudde is probably the leading expert on the classification of extreme right political movements in the post Second World War era. Of course that does not make him infallible, but it does elevate his opinion over those of non-expert commentators. TFD (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree that Mudde is a "leading expert on the classification of extreme right political movements", TFD. See, for example, Cas Mudde entry: "This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources." --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Populist radical right parties in Europe (1997) has 1,353 cites shown in Google scholar,[17] it was hailed as "a benchmark for future work on the radical right."[18] The reviewer particularly noted, "One of the main strengths of the book is the conceptualization and classification of the radical right." The reviewer saw that as a major contribution. Whether or not anyone bothers to write a Wikipedia article about him or how well it is prepared is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump signature size is inappropriately minuscule

Trump's sig size in the infobox is minuscule, and consequently looks silly or wrong. I increased it a moderate amount [19] (it could even go bigger than I made it per the space available for it, probably should), and was reverted by user Dervorguilla with rationale "so man’s signature not substantially taller than similar woman’s signature (compare with, e.g., Hillary Clinton)" [20]. That argument is absurd (a "man versus woman" issue, huh?!). It is also comparing apples to oranges: the two articles have different template infoboxes, Clinton's signature is presented in-line by its infobox template, Trump's signature is presented by its infobox template not in-line, but solo at the infobox bottom, where there is ample more space. (Thus if you artificially equate the two, you end up with Clinton's sig size looking appropriate size for the manner her infobox presents it [a line item], and Trump's sig size looking inappropriately puny for the manner his infobox presents it [solo at infobox bottom].)

Don't minisculize Trump's sig with a faulty bogus apples-oranges logic--do what's appropriate for each case (Clinton's sig, as line item, would appear inappropriate if blown up in size; Trump's sig, assigned to the infobox bottom space, appears inappropriately minuscule when shrunk to somehow "equal" Clinton's sig size). No reader is going to notice or care or compare sig sizes between different articles, they will only notice when a sig size doesn't appropriately fill/occupy the space assigned to it. (Wow, I think all of this is obvious, I'm dying of boredom stating the obvious.) IHTS (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I changed the size to a middle ground to accomodate both editors' concerns. Peace! — JFG ^talk 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it related to the size of his hands?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, JFG. (I think .5 is still small for the available space, but at least it's better.) IHTS (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

According to IHTS, "no reader is going to notice ... or compare sig sizes between different articles...". But cf. Lunsford, "Fallacies of Argument", 508-09. "Begging the question -- that is, assuming as true the very claim that's disputed -- is a form of circular argument, divorced from reality." And a claim can be made that at least some readers are going to notice the disparity.

No fallacy, no circular logic. (If you assume that a typical reader goes to an article for its content, they why oh why would "the disparity" occur or pop out to them, when Hillary's sig appropriately fits its available space, and Trump's sig appropriately fits its available space? I can't imagine that happening even once for typical/casual reader. If the fallacy is assuming all readers are typical/casual, I didn't make that assumption.) IHTS (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

As pointed out by IHTS, however, a claim can be made that at least some readers are going to notice when a sig doesn't fit its assigned space. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I think most if not all readers would notice the vacuum of unused space. (Things like that are instinctive, basic psychology/brain evolution. Noticing things out of place/ill-fitting helped our survival.) IHTS (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Apt and well-phrased, IHTS. Technically, the disruption of a regular pattern triggers a P wave with a 75 ms delay (or something along those lines).

Try scrolling down the infobox using the "Mobile sidebar preview" gadget. Do you notice any pattern disruptions that don't appear in the normal view? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thx (was unaware of that gadget, and I don't have iPhone, so looks useful). It came up okay, but I'm not sure what you're driving at. (There was less text per line re infobox text lines compared to normal view, and the sig looks the same in its space as normal view [although as mentioned above it is still too small for available space IMO].) BTW, "pattern disruption" is a different thing from what I've been talking about (filling available space), I never referred to "patterns" at all here. (Here's a bad analogy. If we are intelligent apes "walking the Earth" and "gettin' into adventures", and saw a lake with lily pads distributed on the surface, we wouldn't notice anything special about one lily pad in the center of the lake. But even if we never saw that lake before, if we came across a different lake with only a single lily pad in the center of it, it would catch attention as "odd" and even probably spur investigation of it ["What's it doing there?"]. Whereas if on the way home to our cave we came across a deep large-screen-TV-sized puddle with a single lily pad in the center, we'd just step on it or maybe pick it and eat it, without anything similarly striking us as "odd". Home Sweet Cave.) (talk)

Here is how Trump feels about your precious lilypads, IHTS. I Saw Eagle Flying Low over Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The artist should have done their research. Miniguns are electrically operated, requiring an external power source. Only in the movies can you walk around with one of those. They should have given him an M60 instead. For realism. Doc talk 07:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The lily pads weren't "precious", only objects in an analogy. (They might be nutritious however, if the apes were omnivores.) The solution to compromise w/ you is really Randy-inappropriate; the same as if someone told me I can't fill up the gas tank in my Toyota, 'cause it has more capacity than a woman's Volkswagon at the other pump.) IHTS (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right in part, IHTS. My apologies for getting silly with the second-wave feminist nonsense (which I thoroughly rebut at Feminism#Jurisprudence). However, the solution was not technically a "compromise" between two editors - for you'd proven that my original claim was in error.

The question then became, what image size does fit best? Should we focus on the horizontal dimension or the vertical dimension?

Only if the vertical is important could an argument be made that current size (as set by JFG) is adequate. I could make a reasonable claim that it's a bit too high, based on the average em-height of signatures in similar articles. So perhaps we could understand upright=0.5 as a geometric compromise between vertical and horizontal fit, rather than a subjective compromise between two editors. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, I think comparing to "similar articles" is off-point - the space available each article infobox provides s/ be the guide. For a retangular box containing this sig, width expands faster (more units) per increase in height. So IMO height greater than .5 is better (because more width is better). IHTS (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

What if the lilypad was a Lotus, and it was driven by a woman?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Wielding a minigun plugged into the lighter socket... --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Point taken, IHTS. But if we apply the "space available" metric alone, Li Bai's signature would need to be nearly five times taller than María del Carmen González-Valerio's.

Perhaps we should compare to similar articles with similar signature-character counts? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There are no sigs at either article. (Li Bia img is of an artwork, not a sig.) I recommend that a problem exist, before you attempt to find solution. And you seem permanently stuck on making comparisons. (If you crop a photo, you'll go wrong by chasing other similar photos to compare. Deal w/ what is in front of you.) IHTS (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Will do, IHTS. You mentioned in particular, "I think most if not all readers would notice the vacuum of unused space." With my Firefox/PC browser magnification set at 100%, the unused space around the signature looks about the same as the average unused space around the other Infobox elements.
But to me as a reader, the unused space on a generic HTML document is of trifling importance, because I think of it as varying with device, platform, and magnification. What I notice instead here is the signature height. I see it as overly tall, because it draws my attention away from the data in the preceding elements (which are more helpful to me personally and, most likely, to the average WP reader). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You're still *comparing*! Except now, instead of to other similar articles, you're comparing white space surrounding the sig to white space surrounding the infobox line items. It's still an apples-to-oranges compare; the elements are different in kind and available space. Regarding platforms, I'm assuming the relative amount of white space to entire available space remains the same between platforms. Regarding sig size detracting your attention from the infobox line items, that's a non-starter, since the sig is an entirely different construct than the line items (it's a weird or wild artistic shape/construct), that alone will guarantee drawing attention differently from the uniform text line items, regardless what vertical size the sig assumes - it will *always* stand out because it is totally unlike the other items). p.s. This has become tedious. I won't be responding further unless other editors have problems too, other than you. IHTS (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I've adjusted the sig size to more appropriately fill the available space (the approx long-standing size until this edit containing rationale "compare with Hillary Clinton's signature: male competitor's signature taller than female's, by 1.5:1" already discussed above). There is no difference between the judgment involved, from cropping a photo: Each person's sig is like their own little "work of art"; the available space in this infobox is like the "canvas" for said work. Dervorguilla, you seem to be the only editor generating ongoing objections to this. As with the gender-based argument, I don't see all your "comparison" arguments making much sense, or refuting what I've described & explained. Your displeasure has been based on considerations of things outside of the thing (thing + its space) itself. That is not a valid way to look at presenting/displaying a person's sig. A person's sig is not "listed information". It is more like an expression of the subject's personality/persona. IHTS (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"A person's sig ... is more like an expression of the subject's personality/persona." Except that it isn't, IHTS. Graphology -- the analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of handwriting -- purports to be able to evaluate personality characteristics but is generally considered a pseudoscience. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Give me a break. It's the person's individual expression (unique to themselves). That's why I wrote "expression of their persona". And that's why a sig is used as identity confirmation for a person, just like a thumbprint is. It's their individual identification "stamp". And who said anything about "evaluat[ing] personality". Not me. (Nitpick some more??? I do think your objective now is to continue this thread without end, grind me down. This thread should have been 1/4 its size, at most. Plus you changed the long-standing sig size, I essentially restored it. It was you who needed to open this thread per WP:BRD, not me.) IHTS (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Putting arguments in my mouth, suggesting I'm pushing pseudoscience, that I've engaged in fallacy/circular logic, picking on every possible angle to question what is essentially a simple cropping issue for what is essentially an artwork file (subject's unique signature), borders on personal attacks and Talk page disruption. With your original absurd gender-based rationale, and posting link to a mocking fantasy artwork of the subject, and sarcastic mocking of me ("Here is how Trump feels about your precious lilypads"), no wonder I've lost my patience with you. IHTS (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

To address your most telling concerns here, IHTS:

...You changed the long-standing sig size, I essentially restored it. It was you who needed to open this thread per WP:BRD...

Good point about the "long-standing" sig size. Yes, it's been nearly seven years since sysop Connormah added the image, at upright=0.7. And it stayed that size till I meddled with it.

But the binding policy here (as cited at BRD) is actually WP:CON: "Consensus is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." And JFG clearly implemented Consensus policy at rev 729145516, explaining, "I changed the size to a middle ground to accomodate both editors' concerns".

...Who said anything about "evaluat[ing] personality". Not me.

I may indeed have misunderstood the point of your argument that the signature "is more like an expression of the subject's personality..." The language about "evaluating personality" is found at Graphology: "the analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of handwriting [for the purpose of] evaluating personality characteristics [or the like]." (Thence also my claim that such analysis "is generally considered a pseudoscience".)

Putting arguments in my mouth, suggesting I'm pushing pseudoscience [or] that I've engaged in fallacy/circular logic, [and] picking on every possible angle to question what is essentially a simple cropping issue ... borders on personal attacks and Talk page disruption.

No; rather, you and I have been giving each other some very good reasons for seeing one sig size as better than another. And I feel that I've come to understand your reasons for disagreeing with me (and with JFG).

With your original absurd gender-based rationale, and posting link to a mocking fantasy artwork of the subject, and sarcastic mocking of me ... no wonder I've lost my patience with you.

I also feel that I've been complying with WP:INDCRIT and that you (easily) understood my responses to your comments.

Here are 3 diffs that illustrate why I have trouble believing your claim that I've caused you to lose patience by linking to the "mocking" artwork and so forth.

1. Your own apparently mocking reply ("No, the size of your head.") to Jack Upland's mocking reply to JFG's comment.

2. Your apparently light-hearted reply ("Depends of course how good-looking she is.") to my second light-hearted comment that mentions the artwork.

3. Your unacknowledged removal of your two replies. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Could we solve all this by getting Donald to write with a crayon?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Your off-topic graphic mocked the BLP subject, and your associated comment mocked me as editor. I deleted my own off-topic posts, but in no sense were they mocking of you or any other editor, as yours were. And I listed reasons beyond your off-topic mocking posts for losing patience with you. (You seem to dwell on the trivial and off-topic. Duh I wonder why.) ¶ A "compromise" sig size isn't logically appropriate, since you've never offered or stuck with any rationale for shrinking the long-standing size (which is also the template:Infobox person default size for signature_size parm, 150px), and your rationale for shrinking the size and reverting me based on sexual equality was so absurd: "male competitor's signature taller than female's". You don't have any consensus to reduce the long-standing sig size. And no one contributing to the thread has objected to the long-standing sig size. (Am restoring on that basis. No doubt you will continue your BS discussion techniques and out-of-policy reverting, however. You seem pleased to extend this thread and reverting until 6,000 years.) IHTS (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You're making the claim that the off-topic posts you deleted weren't mocking other editors, IHTS.

I deleted my own off-topic posts, but in no sense were they mocking of you or any other editor...

Yet your "off-topic post" of 10 July 2016 seems to be personally mocking Jack Upland:

I changed the size to a middle ground to accomodate both editors' concerns. Peace! — JFG 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it related to the size of his hands?--Jack Upland 06:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

No, the size of your head. IHTS 07:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

And contrary to WP:REDACT, you've neglected to indicate that two days later you deleted the post and also a second post, to which I'd already replied. --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic, and wrong. (Upland's post was disruptive snark and deserved a putdown. Your mocking of me was unprompted & undeserved. Your mocking of Trump also did/does not belong here.) I'm having trouble finding anything substantive contributed by you in this thread. Yet you will probably continue extending it. IHTS (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• The word, by the way, is minuscule. Not miniscule. Look it up. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  Thx. IHTS (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• My edit summary for reducing the sig size was,That sig was too big. Now we need someone who knows how to move the label, "Signature," over to the left of the infobox. This should look like the sig in Hillary Clinton's infobox. IHTS wrote in the edit summary restoring the larger signature, no, read the Talk page; the infobox at Hillary Clinton is a different template, providing a different available space; your "too big" compare on that basis is apples-and-oranges). I did look over this long discussion before changing it. My "too big" means in relation to the rest of the infobox, i.e., in the context of this page. My remark that it should look like Clinton's meant it should look balanced in relation to the rest of the infobox like hers does.
• I think the real problem is the fact that the word "Signature" is center-aligned. That's what creates so much white space that IHTS feels should be filled. I feel filling that space makes the sig oversized in the context of the page.
• CONCRETE SUGGESTION for improvement of article and end of debate: change the template so the space for the sig is smaller.
• Compare (yes, compare!) how Trump's sig is more conspicuous on the page that John Hancock's. Doesn't look right; doesn't make sense; can't find precedent or reason to make it so conspicuous. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. (The two infobox templates are different and provide different available spaces.) Whether that's a problem or not, I doubt this is the proper venue to discuss it. Oh and I did not "restore the larger signature"; the size was blown up to incredible size due to markup error, I simply corrected my earlier markup error. IHTS (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

YoPienso's claim seems legitimate, IHTS. He's saying that your edit "restores the larger signature". Most people here would likely understand "larger" as meaning the larger of the two things that were the subjects of the preceding discussion. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

No, go look at my diffs at the WP:EWN incident you opened. (Actually click on them, and look at the article effects.) And p.s., there is obviously a disconnect between the template:Infobox person doc, and the actual default siz size which has been long-lasting in this article, and against which you've never presented a single cogent argument why something is wrong with. IHTS (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed the relevant diffs before I made the report, IHTS. And I think YoPienso's comment speaks for itself. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparent consensus

Compilation of most relevant passages from discussion above

Trump's sig size [80px] in the infobox is minuscule... I increased it a moderate amount [21] [to 130px] (it could even go bigger than I made it per the space available for it, probably should)...

...[Readers] will ... notice when a sig size doesn't appropriately fill/occupy the space assigned to it... IHTS 02:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I changed the size to a middle ground [110px] to accommodate both editors' concerns.... — JFG 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, JFG. (I think .5 [110px] is still small for the available space, but at least it's better [than 80px].) IHTS 07:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

... I could make a reasonable claim that that it's a bit too high, based on the average em-height of signatures in similar articles. So perhaps we could understand upright=0.5 as a geometric compromise between vertical and horizontal fit... --Dervorguilla 01:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

...The space available each article infobox provides s/ be the guide. For a rectangular box ... width expands faster (more units) per increase in height. So IMO height greater than .5 is better (because more width is better). IHTS 02:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I've adjusted the sig size [from 110px to 170px] to more appropriately fill the available space... IHTS 07:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

...The binding policy here ... is actually WP:CON: "Consensus is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." And JFG clearly implemented Consensus policy at rev 729145516...

...A "compromise" sig size isn't logically appropriate, since you've never offered or stuck with any rationale for shrinking the long-standing size (which is also the template:Infobox person default size for signature_size parm, 150px)... And no one contributing to the thread has objected to the long-standing sig size. (Am restoring [from 110px] on that basis...) IHTS 23:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

*My edit summary for reducing the sig size [to 110px] was, That sig was too big... IHTS wrote in the edit summary restoring the larger signature, no, read the Talk page; the infobox at Hillary Clinton is a different template, providing a different available space; your "too big" compare on that basis is apples-and-oranges). I did look over this long discussion before changing it. My "too big" means in relation to the rest of the infobox, i.e., in the context of this page...

*I think the real problem is the fact that the word "Signature" is center-aligned. That's what creates so much white space that IHTS feels should be filled. I feel filling that space makes the sig oversized in the context of the page... YoPienso 08:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

...(The two infobox templates [Infobox person & Infobox officeholder] ... provide different available spaces.)... IHTS 17:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Compilation of most relevant passages from a Comments section elsewhere

User Yopienso's edit [from 220px to 110px] was aimed to correct a gross markup error, nothing more. User JFG did not offer any opinion on signature size, he/she only took the median between an inappropriately minuscule size [80px] ... and the long-standing template:Infobox person default sig size [150px]... IHTS 17:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment – ...I do feel that the "0.5" [110px] signature size looks appropriate given this infobox format and the shape of this particular signature... JFG ^talk 16:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

___

JFG, Dervorguilla, and YoPienso currently appear to support the 110px compromise signature size of 10 July 2016 (and oppose an 80px, 130px, or 150px size).

IHTS currently appears to support an 150px size (and oppose an 80px, 110px, or 130px size).

Apparent consensus size (current): 110px. --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Your "apparent consensus" is a fake and fabricated one. Your shrinking preference was first based on an absurd "gender equality" argument, which you have now switched to "My "too big" means in relation to the rest of the infobox", when I've made it clear numerous times the available space provided by the infobox for signature is a different and larger space than other infobox items. (So apples-and-oranges comparison, invalidating your preference for "compromising". JFG offered no rationale for reducing the sig size from the long-standing sig size other than "to compromise", and I explained how compromise with a size with invalid "gender equality" reduction rationale makes no sense. He/she only changed their rationale after personally insulting me then getting flak back for it. Yopienso corrected my markup error, then offered thoughts about the differences between the different infobox templates as source of different available signature sizes, and suggested a discussion about template modification for all WP articles that belongs elsewhere. His is a different discussion input than you are attempting to distort here for your own POV purpose to shrink the Donald Trump signature without cause. There is nothing wrong with the current long-standing default signature size, and no editor (NO EDITOR!) has given any reason why the current size is bad or wrong or inappropriate, other than your apples-and-oranges invalid comparison reason. IHTS (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the template used on Barack Obama's page. It's the one I'm most familiar with and keeps the signature proportionate to the rest of the infobox. My reason for thinking the current size is bad or wrong or inappropriate is precisely that: the size of the signature is disproportionate to the rest of the infobox. I was unaware we have so many different infobox templates for people, probably since I don't pay a lot of attention to the BLPs of celebrities, being more interested in politicians. YoPienso (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"the template used on Barack Obama's page [...] keeps the signature proportionate to the rest of the infobox". And the template used on Trump's page doesn't. I agree. As already mentioned, the different templates provide different available spaces for sig, and the response of shrinking the long-standing default size to artificially "equalize" sig sizes when a different available space exists, is artificial and equivalent to forcing square peg in round hole. Ok, IHTS (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Probably the current template should stand unless Trump becomes the POTUS, in which case we would swap it out for the template used for other PsOTUS. YoPienso (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Somehow during all this drama, the signature lost its extra markup and came to be autosized by the template. I think that's fine and all editors involved should drop the stick and enjoy the sunshine. — JFG ^talk 22:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You haven't been paying attention. I restored the long-standing markup here, which was overridden here, which override was reverted here. All was included in discussion. p.s. Of course it looks fine, and thx for that. Only user Dervorguilla has been opposing, w/o cause. IHTS (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, this happened five days after my only edit, I was indeed not following what happened to the page at that point. Glad this looks settled now. — JFG ^talk 19:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. IHTS (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

BLP violation in lede

This edit restored content which is no longer accurate (and replaced content which is accurate). The body of the article currently states:

Trump later modified his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply to people originating from countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies. Trump has said that the ban would be lifted once the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists.

Also, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, the content should NOT have been restored unless/until there was consensus to do so in Talk.CFredkin (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh? In what POSSIBLE sense is this a BLP violation? Let's not throw that accusation around unless it has some basis in reality. As for the possible wording, we have two choices at the moment: "a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." (the current wording) and "a proposal to temporarily ban immigration to the United States from countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States, until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists."(the previous and your preferred wording). I don't see any way that we can gloss over his frequently repeated insistence on banning Muslims, even if he did later modify it by saying "from terrorist countries". (In fact when he first said it he even said the ban would apply to American citizens who were Muslim, although he quickly retracted that.) And his ban was never just on "immigration", it was on entering the country at all - as tourists, as foreign dignitaries, students, whatever. The "terrorist countries" comment in June did not revoke the Muslim ban, it expanded on it, as per the NPR source: "Responding to the Orlando shootings in a New Hampshire speech Monday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump used the appearance to expand on his previous call to temporarily ban all Muslims from immigrating to the United States." The fact that he specified "from terrorist countries" did not in any way erase his previous and never-retracted ban on "Muslims". The whole history - ban and expansion - is spelled out in the text. If you think the modification is so important it has to go in the lede, how about something like this: "a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims, particularly those from countries with a proven history of terrorism, from entering the United States until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Melanie basically covers it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That sentence in the lede begins with "His platform includes...." It's intended to reflect his current positions. The following reliable sources all indicate that he changed his stance from temporarily banning Muslims to temporarily banning people from countries with a history of terrorist activity:

Trump Shifts Muslim Ban to Focus on Only 'Terrorist' Nations (ABC News)

Donald Trump's shifting positions on Muslim ban (CNN)

Did Donald Trump just soften his Muslim ban proposal? (CSM

Has Donald Trump lifted his Muslim ban? (CBS News)

Trump Calls To Ban Immigration From Countries With 'Proven History Of Terrorism' (The Hill)CFredkin (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, the edit I referenced is a BLP violation because WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE indicates that:

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

This was clearly not adhered to in this case.CFredkin (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Every one of those citations makes it clear that 1) he is still talking about MUSLIMS, particularly those from terrorist countries - not Christians or Jews or atheists from those countries, just Muslims; and 2) he has not withdrawn his proposed ban on all Muslims; the closest he has come was a comment that a Scottish Muslim "wouldn't bother me". His spokespeople, trying to explain what he said, were all over the map, ranging from "it's about Muslims from countries that support terrorism" to "nothing has changed." Trump himself, as recently as June 25, "declined to answer directly in an interview with CNN whether his ban would extend to all foreign Muslims."[22] So there's really no evidence that he has withdrawn his repeated call for a "shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." At most, he recently said that his ban is not ironclad and that people coming from "terror countries" would be "even more severely vetted". So as I proposed above, we could say "particularly those from countries with a proven history of terrorism". But there is no way we can say or imply that he has withdrawn his platform to ban Muslims from entering the country. The sources, and Trump himself, simply do not support that. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN and Volunteer Marek on this point. The lead is a summary — it is not meant to reflect ever single variation in phrasing. As VM notes, Trump has never retracted his previous proposed "ban on Muslims." Neutrality^talk 22:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Excerpts from sources provided above:

Donald Trump said today it "wouldn't bother me" if Scottish Muslims went to the United States — seeming to move away from the temporary ban on all foreign Muslims going to the United States that he has called for throughout his presidential campaign. In interviews at his golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland, Trump went further, saying that the ban would be focused on "terrorist" countries, shifting from his previous proposal of "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." - ABC News (6/25/16)

Trump also indicated on Saturday that his ban is not ironclad and declined to answer directly in an interview with CNN whether his ban would extend to all foreign Muslims.

Instead, Trump emphasized that Muslims from states with heavy terrorist activity would be "very strongly" vetted and suggested that the U.S. would more closely scrutinize all individuals seeking to enter the country. He also told the Daily Mail that individuals from "terror countries" would be "even more severely vetted" but could ultimately be allowed entry into the country. "People coming from the terror states -- and you know who I'm talking about when I talk about the terror states -- we are going to be so vigilant you wouldn't believe it and frankly a lot will be banned," Trump told CNN after touring his golf course here. Trump also focused on the need to ban individuals from "terrorist countries" in an interview later Saturday with Bloomberg Politics.

"I want terrorists out. I want people that have bad thoughts out. I would limit specific terrorist countries and we know who those terrorist countries are," Trump said, again not specifying which countries would be included. - CNN (6/25/16)

The presumptive Republican nominee would now ban Muslims only from “terror” countries, he told the Daily Mail on the 18th hole of his golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland, while he urged several golfers to play through the hole. "I don't want people coming in from the terror countries. You have terror countries! I don't want them, unless they're very, very strongly vetted," he said, according to NBC News. - CSM (6/26/16)

When CBS News asked Trump, on a tour of his Aberdeen golf course, whether he would allow Muslims from Scotland or Great Britain into the U.S., Trump shook his head.

That "wouldn't bother me," the billionaire responded.

It seemed to be a softening of Trump's initial call, made in December, for a "total and complete shutdown" of all Muslims attempting to step foot on U.S. soil. - CBS (6/25/16)

Trump told reporters that it "wouldn't bother" him if a Muslim immigrated to the U.S. from a country like Scotland.

Then, in an interview with the DailyMail.com, he seemed to expand on a shift away from focusing on religion toward a country-specific policy. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee seemed to say that he may allow Muslim immigrants from certain "terror countries" after applying extra scrutiny.

"I don't want people coming in — I don't want people coming in from certain countries," Trump told the Daily Mail. "I don't want people coming in from the terror countries. You have terror countries! I don't want them, unless they're very, very strongly vetted.

"People coming from the terror states — and you know who I'm talking about when I talk about the terror states — we are going to be so vigilant you wouldn't believe it and frankly a lot will be banned," Trump later told CNN. - The Hill (6/25/16)

It's pretty clear that Trump is not referring to banning all foreign Muslims any longer. So to say that in the lead to his bio is inaccurate. Instead I think we could say something like:

His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, often non-interventionist views on foreign policy, and a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States (later changed to people from terrorist countries) until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots.

CFredkin (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Your quotes are the exact same ones I was referring to, when I said he has not retracted his proposal to ban all Muslims, and that his proposal to ban "people" from terrorist countries refers to Muslims from those countries (as verified by his spokesperson). And his proposal was not later "changed", it was maybe "refocused". I have deleted the reference to non-interventionist from the sentence, per talk below. I think we are close to agreement. How about something like:

His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, and a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States (which he later said would focus on those from from terrorist countries) until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots.

Personally I prefer the wording I proposed above - "a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims, particularly those from countries with a proven history of terrorism, from entering the United States until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists" - over the version with the parentheses, but I won't insist on it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. It may be "pretty clear" to you that "Trump is not referring to banning all foreign Muslims any longer" - but it was not clear to the authors of these references (note the headlines "Did Donald Trump just soften his Muslim ban proposal?"and "Has Donald Trump lifted his Muslim ban?"), or to Trump's spokespeople, or even to Trump himself, who refused to reply to a direct question on that subject - as I pointed out above. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN OK. It looks like your proposal in talkquotes above is as close as we're going to get to a reasonable outcome. Let's do it.CFredkin (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've compiled the most relevant passages from the four most mainstream English-language news media, as measured by circulation.

1. BBC News: 'Orlando justifies my Muslim ban', says Trump (June 14, 2016).

Here are five key lines from his speech – and what they could mean.

[1.] "... I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats."

... Trump provided some additional details about the temporary Muslim ban that he proposed ... in December. First of all, it may not be a Muslim ban at this point. In his speech he simply referred to closing the borders to nations that "have a history of terrorism" against the US and its allies...

2. AP: In his words: Donald Trump's evolving Muslim ban (June 28, 2016).

June 24–25, 2016: ... At one point Trump tells reporters that he'd be fine with Muslims from Scotland or the U.K. coming to the U.S.  Trump later takes to Twitter to offer a clarification: "We must suspend immigration from regions linked with terrorism until a proven vetting method is in place."

3. Reuters: After Florida shooting, Trump hardens stance on Muslims (June 14, 2016).

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee ... propos[ed] that the United States suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is "a proven history of terrorism."

4. WSJ: Donald Trump back-pedals on banning Muslims from U.S. (June 28, 2016).

Donald Trump appears to be backing away from one of his ... proposals—banning Muslims from entering the U.S.... Since ... May ... he has gradually moved away from a blanket religious ban and toward a more nuanced policy targeting countries with a record of terrorism.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, are you OK with the wording in the last set of talk-quotes above? --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

None of the above, MelanieN! According to BBC News and other top-ranked authorities, Trump is currently indicating he would not ban persons based on religion. Rather, he's openly saying he would ban persons based on national origin.

Muslims from England or Scotland: OK. Persons of any claimed religion from Syria: not OK.

In his platform, Trump is unmistakably advocating national-origin discrimination.

Many readers are intensely interested in this controversy -- including Muslims living in England! We owe them the best available information as judged by its authority, accuracy/verifiability, and currency. (MLA Handbook.) Not as judged by our own arguments (however logical) that Trump's statement is confusing or misleading.

The four authorities cited above do not support the information that "his platform includes ... a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims". Indeed, they would seem more to contradict it. For this reason, I'm removing the information forthwith.

That "Trump has never retracted his previous proposed 'ban on Muslims'" is almost a truism; as a matter of principle, Trump doesn't retract anything he's previously proposed! Nor do most other political figures (e.g., Bill Clinton or George Bush). It would amount to acknowledging they made a mistake.

Nor does Trump in particular feel obligated to address any embarrassing question in a straightforward manner -- or at all.

Although many publications do dwell on such matters, the most authoritative ones (BBC, WSJ, and the like) try to avoid them as being, shall we say, comparatively trifling (or perhaps even a bit juvenile for a seasoned journalist to report on at any great length?). What really matters is, what is the candidate saying in his most authoritative (i.e., most fully amended) platform. Not, what did he say last year.

Look at it this way: Has any high-quality source proposed that Trump was more candid or truthful last year than he is this year?

(Nonetheless, I think we were wise to spend some time investigating this matter.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 09:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, you had no right to remove that phrase, and in fact you violated the Discretionary Sanctions by doing so. You need CONSENSUS to act on disputed material, not just your own conviction that you are right. CFredkin and I had reached consensus on a wording that included both "Muslims" and "from terrorist countries." Volunteer Marek and Neutrality had earlier agreed with me that "Muslim" should be included. That leaves just you, one against four, claiming that just because he doesn't repeat "Muslim" in every statement he makes, that somehow means that he has dropped religion in favor of national origin (which not even his own people believe; in fact one of them clarified that Trump means MUSLIMS from terror countries). Trump's Muslim ban (including modifications) is his second-most-notable position (after "build the wall"), and it is explained in a full paragraph in the text. IMO we would be wrong to just ignore it in the lede. I think the agreed-upon statement above should be put into the article but I will wait for a little more input from others - because I respect consensus, and so must you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I see that someone has already restored the phrase; that makes five to one in favor of including it. They restored the existing version; I will replace it with the more consensus-supported version above. Then we should leave it alone until consensus is reached here to do something else. --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In the sources you quoted above: while you were cherry-picking quotes, did you not notice the headlines? Only the WSJ even implies that he might be backpedaling on his Muslim ban. The others say "Orlando justifies my Muslim ban", "Donald Trump's evolving Muslim ban", and "Trump hardens stance on Muslims". --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN: You wrote, "Dervorguilla, you had no right to remove that phrase, and in fact you violated the Discretionary Sanctions by doing so." Please spell out the discretionary sanction that I violated. Thank you. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I picked the most relevant quotes. I gave the electronic headline for each article. The headline is not a static source: it's written by editors and varies by edition. And the electronic headline is most often unrelated to the original print headline (the more authoritative 'source'). But no quality newspaper republishes a passage from another newspaper's headline; it reprints relevant passages from the story itself, under its own headline. Nor does any scholarly work ever cite a headline as an authority for a claim.

5. N.Y. Times: How Donald Trump keeps changing his mind on abortion, torture and banning Muslims (June 29, 2016).

On June 13, Mr. Trump offered a slightly new formulation: The ban would be geographical, not religious, applying to “areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies.” But not just any kind of terrorism, he clarified on Twitter two hours later: The ban was only for nations “tied to Islamic terror.” Then ... last weekend, Mr. Trump said he would allow Muslims from allies like the United Kingdom to enter...”

--Dervorguilla (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the author does not write the headline and that it can change. But it reflects what somebody reading and evaluating that article thought the article said. Most of them thought it was still about the "Muslim ban". You seem to be the only one who thinks one quote of his amounted to a repeal of the religious test in favor of a national test. Most, including Trump's own staff, thought it was a modification of the Muslim ban. Here is how the AP tried to analyze his current position: basically, nobody knows what he thinks or what he is calling for. And I loved this: "Asked to clarify whether Trump still supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. as originally proposed, a ban of immigration from countries associated with terrorism, as he said in his post-Orlando speech, or strong vetting of people coming into the country from such nations, as he said this past weekend in Scotland, (spokeswoman) Hicks said: "Mr. Trump stated a position consistent with his speech two weeks ago." "He has been very clear," she added in an email Monday. It's the press, she said, that has "tried to cause confusion."" Yeah, right. Clear as mud, as the saying goes. Apparently his staff can weasel-talk almost as well as he can. But our job as encyclopedists is to try to convey a true sense of the situation, as reported by Reliable Sources. I think the phrase we now have in the lede, and the paragraph in the text, do a pretty good job of doing that. If Trump should eventually make a clear statement of his position - maybe in his acceptance speech? - we should certainly use that. But in the meantime we have to go with what we have. BTW if you look at his ACTUAL platform, spelled out on his web page, he goes into great specific detail about the Wall and about Mexico paying for it. But there is nothing in writing about Muslims that I could find. In fact he has never said anything definite or in writing about his Muslim ban, except for the pledge he used to repeat at every rally, reading it from a card: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." I believe he doesn't do that any more, but he hasn't replaced it with any similarly clear statement. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you and think last article in NYT quoted by Dervorguilla [23] is pretty much instructive. It shows some "common denominators" in all his seemingly contradictory statements. He certainly has some ideas, and here they are: (a) ban Muslims one way or another, (b) ban abortion, (c) take relatives of potential terrorists as hostages (well, that is exactly what Ramzan Kadyrov does). My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for interpreting the article, My very best wishes. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN: In your reply to my comment you say, "Dervorguilla, you had no right to remove that phrase, and in fact you violated the Discretionary Sanctions by doing so." Please educate me about the particular Sanctions section I violated. Thank you. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I felt that you violated the spirit of the sanctions - which include not making changes to the article while the issue is under discussion, waiting for consensus instead of acting on your own belief, and avoiding any kind of edit warring. But based on the wording placed on this article by an administrator - "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page of this article" - the DS here apply only to RESTORING controversial material, not to removing it. So in a strict sense you did not violate the DS as stated at this article, and I apologize for saying you did. --MelanieN (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology, MelanieN. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"non-interventionist"

I realize that one of the difficulties with Trump is that he often says mutually contradictory things, but given that he wants to "bomb ISIS" and send troops back to the middle east, I think we should eschew describing him as "non-interventionist" in the lede. Both sources and his own statements are contradictory. Roughly what he seems to mean by "non-interventionists" is "it's bad if someone other than me does it". Anyway, I don't think there's enough support for that to be in the lede.

A similar issue arises with trade where he has described himself as "free trader".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it says "often" non-interventionist, although your summary is probably more accurate. I would be OK with removing the "non-interventionist" thing from the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Volunteer Marek that it should be removed—he has been inconsistent and supports intervention in some cases, and the sources say so. Neutrality^talk 22:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed "non-interventionist" from the lede. There is still a mention, suitably hedged, in the body of the text. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That seems good, thanks. Neutrality^talk 00:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Term 'terrorist countries'

In the context of international terrorism, a term such as "terrorist countries" should be understood as meaning countries "where the perpetrators [of such terrorism] operate or seek refuge." See 18 U.S.C. § 2331. And yet Somedifferentstuff's edit summary shows he (quite reasonably!) believes that "terrorist countries" isn't an encyclopedic term. So: We've established that using the term makes the text less accessible to the average editor -- who (like me) would need to consult a legal or business dictionary to find out what the term means in Standard English.

As pointed out in MOS:INTRO § Provide an accessible overview, it's very important that the text in the lead be accessible. Here, for example, we could (1) say what the term 'terrorist countries' means or (2) substitute more accessible language. Based on the terminology used in top-ranked sources (AP, Reuters, and the like), we can use language such as '...areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the U.S., Europe, or their allies...'

Does anyone here believe that the average reader wouldn't readily understand what any of those terms means in Standard English? ('Areas of the world', 'proven history', 'terrorism against the U.S.', or 'their allies'?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

We can't make up our own definition. But we can use the definition Trump gave: "When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats." We do in fact use that phrase in the body of the text. And we can use the shorthand he and his staffers use, "terrorist countries" (in quotation marks), which fits better in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Just passing by, I for one did not know of "terrorist countries" technical meaning. I assumed it was just a term made up by media. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 02:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I think he means these countries. That's official. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That could be one definition, but it's not Trump's definition. (Would he accept anything "official" from the Obama administration?) His definition is much broader and much less specific: "areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies". I think it's pretty clear that he, and he alone, gets to decide what countries those are. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"...He, and he alone, gets to decide what countries those are." Yes -- much as presidents Carter, Reagan, and Clinton got to designate countries as "state sponsors of terrorism" (in aggregate, 5 countries: 3 Muslim, 2 non-Muslim), and much as President Obama gets to (currently, 3 countries: Syria, Sudan, and Iran).
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy & Human Rights, State Sponsors of Terrorism. --Dervorguilla (talk)06:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

In the 60 Minutes interview, Trump said "[from terrorist] territories", not "countries". And it was clear "territories" meant to replace "Muslims", so, the lead is now misrepresentative of his most recent proposal. (Is the lead intending to give a history of his changing proposals? That would be absurd.) IHTS (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That was not at all "clear", as you can see from the extensive discussion above about this. Some of his spokespeople, trying to clarify what he meant, said "the ban would apply to Muslims from terrorist countries" and "nothing has changed". Both he and his spokespeople have repeatedly refused to clarify, even when asked directly, if this "areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism" standard replaces his Muslim ban, or narrows it, or applies to people of all religions from such areas, or what. Since he hasn't withdrawn the ban, and hasn't specified how it relates to the "terrorist areas of the world" standard, I think we have to continue to include the (possibly modified) Muslim ban in the lede. The history of the changing proposals is expounded in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

In the interview, Trump insisted that word "territories" be used to describe, to replace other description that others object to. (You seem to be ignoring that. It has to be pertinent.) IHTS (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the 60 minutes interview you are talking about? I've been quoting his June 13 statement after the Orlando shootings ("I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies") Has he said something more definitive since then? --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, OK, you're talking about his joint interview last Sunday with Mike Pence. Here is the exchange that you think makes it clear that territories was meant to replace Muslims:

Lesley Stahl: (to Pence) --in December you tweeted, and I quote you, "Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional."
Donald Trump: So you call it territories. OK? We're gonna do territories. We're gonna not let people come in from Syria that nobody knows who they are. Hillary Clinton wants 550 percent more people to come in than Obama—
Lesley Stahl: So you—
Donald Trump: --who doesn't know what he's—
Lesley Stahl: --so you're changing—
Donald Trump: --so we're going to—
Lesley Stahl: --your position.
Donald Trump: --no, I-- call it whatever you want. We'll call it territories, OK?
Lesley Stahl: So not Muslims?
Donald Trump: You know-- the Constitution -- there's nothing like it. But it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country, OK? And I'll tell you this. Call it whatever you want, change territories, but there are territories and terror states and terror nations that we're not gonna allow the people to come into our country. And we're gonna have a thing called "Extreme vetting." And if people wanna come in, there's gonna be extreme vetting. We're gonna have extreme vetting. They're gonna come in and we're gonna know where they came from and who they are.

So he sort of says, several times, that he prefers to talk about territories (or "call it whatever you want"). As for whether he means Muslims, notice that she asks him twice he is talking about Muslims or not, and he evades the question both times. When she asks "so you're changing your position?" he says "No, I - call it whatever you want. We'll call it territories, OK?" And when she asks "So not Muslims?" he replies with word salad. If you can find a "clear" statement of policy in this, then you have a very good imagination. In fact this is typical Trump, virtually impossible to parse into an actual statement of policy. But if you see a way to incorporate this recent interview into the lede, please show me your suggested wording. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's what the lede currently says: "His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, and a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States (which he later said would focus on persons from "terrorist countries") until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." He now says "territories" without defining what characterizes those territories; and he also talks about "territories and terror states and terror nations". How would you modify the sentence to get this new wording in? "(which he later said would focus on persons from "terror states")"? "(which he later said would focus on persons from territories)"? --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

From the lede: "His platform includes ... a proposal ... (which he later said...)." But compare CMOS ("Grammar"): "The present tense primarily denotes acts ... or states that occur in the present... The past tense denotes an act ... or state that occurred or existed at some explicit or implicit point in the past."

Both the grammar and the meaning are in error, MelanieN.

Also, there is no need for you to attack IHTS's credibility. Both IHTS and I did (independently) find a clear statement of Trump's policy here; and I for one have a very poor "imagination". --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The tense is only wrong if he has actually abandoned his "ban Muslims" proposal. Which he has persistently refused to do. But let's stick to what should go in the article. Please state, in a phrase or sentence, what you think should go in the lead on this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Content must be agreed in discussion before exact text can be. It's clear he's suggesting to temporarily ban immigrants from certain "terrotories", until "extreme vetting" can screen out "radical Muslim [terrorists]". Plus he previously denied it is a "proposal", and it isn't on his campaign website under "Positions", so "idea" or "suggestion" is a better descriptor. IHTS (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason I challenged Dervorguilla to come up with a proposed wording (I almost added "good luck") is that it is almost impossible to make sense out of his latest interview, and impossible to tell whether he has renounced his earlier "Muslim ban" or simply stopped talking about it. He has actually made two definitive, formal statements on this subject that he has put in writing and repeated many times: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." (December) and "When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats." (May) He also said, in a May interview, that a Muslim ban "hasn't been called for yet" and was "only a suggestion." And now, in July, he offered an incomprehensible ramble about undefined "territories". The two written statements are his own clear words and IMO should be respected as such, particularly over trying to figure out what he means by parsing partial sentences in interviews. So I'll ask you too: please, tell me what you make of this - and what you think we should say. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Already replied above what is clearly the content. If you disallow Trump to modify his suggestion by keeping forefront what he said in the past, then ending up puzzled is no surprise. IHTS (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN: Trump is known for changing his position one or more times in a single spoken sentence! So I personally would use (or believe) only a statement he's made in writing (or under oath).

Here's his plan for immigration reform, which he wrote down nearly a year ago and hasn't changed since:

"We need to stop giving legal immigrant visas to people bent on causing us harm. From the 9/11 hijackers [of Saudi Arabia], to the Boston Bombers [of Kalmykia], and many others, our immigration system is being used to attack us... Here are some additional specific policy proposals for long-term reform: [No. 1.] Increase standards for the admission of refugees and asylum-seekers to crack down on abuses."

So, here's how I would modify the sentence, to bring it into accord with the candidate's historic written (not spoken) platform:

"His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, reform U.S.–China trade, and augment standards for the admission of travelers and asylum-seekers from designated areas (which may include Saudi Arabia, Kalmykia, or Syria, for example)."

But the parenthetical may need some rewording, to meet WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:STICKTOSOURCE.

Note that the clause is supported by the inline citation, per WP:LEADCITE. "Statements about living persons that are likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Some authoritative data & definitions

America's biggest ally is Muslim. (And the ally's biggest city is the biggest city in Europe.) And there's a proven history of terrorism "against" it. Terrorism by, in particular, non-Muslim groups.
America's newest ally is Muslim too. (And it's also in Europe.)
NATO, Member Countries. Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy & Human Rights, Foreign Terrorist Organizations; State Sponsors of Terrorism.

"Territory. A geographical area included within a particular government's jurisdiction"; "occupied territory. Territory that is under the effective control and authority of a belligerent armed force".
Black's Law Dictionary.
To illustrate: Think about an area that's within the jurisdiction of the Government of South Sudan but under the effective control of the janjaweed force supported by the Government of (north) Sudan. It would be part of a terrorist "territory" or "area" but not a terrorist "country". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla - Thanks for trying to come up with some actual wording. First of all, I don't agree with your changing "opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP" - something he has been completely consistent on and repeats in every speech - to "reform U.S.–China trade" - a milquetoast, not-very-notable proposal. So let's either leave that phrase alone or start a separate discussion on it.

On your proposed new immigration wording - "augment standards for the admission of travelers and asylum-seekers from designated areas (which may include Saudi Arabia, Kalmykia, or Syria, for example)" - I doubt if even Trump would recognize that as his position. It's certainly not wording that has been widely publicized or used by him in speeches. It's basically boilerplate from a position paper, probably written by staff. The recent wording that he has used, both in writing and in speeches, and has been widely publicized is "suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies".

IHTS - One of the disagreements between us here is whether we should include the Muslim ban as part of his "platform," since he hasn't mentioned it recently and some people think it has been replaced by more recent wording. And he later said it was "just a suggestion". I think those are reasonable points. I do think we need to retain the Muslim ban in the lede since it was so widely publicized and controversial (I'd like to add the "Wall", too, but that's another discussion for another day), but let's not make it part of his "platform". How about two sentences, something like this: His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration and opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP. In December 2015 he suggested a temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States; in May 2016 he said he would accept Muslim visitors from friendly countries but suspend immigration from areas or territories of the world where there is "a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies," until the U.S. has developed better vetting methods to screen out potential terrorists. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think timestamps are too detailed for lede. And picking/choosing only a couple of the major platform positions is ... according to whom? Anyway here's my input for suggested lede text: His platform includes "real" immigration reform, renegotiation of U.S.–China trade, opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of Veterans' Care, and tax reform. He has suggested a temporary ban on immigration to the United States (initially by all foreign Muslims, except Muslim visitors from friendly countries, then later) from "territories" having "a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies" until better methods of vetting can be developed for screening out potential terrorists. Trump believes that defeating ISIS "fast" is mandatory. Ok, IHTS (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Support, with a friendly amendment to strike out the parenthetical. See rev 731032133 by ThiefOfBagdad (rm scrapped proposal, discussed in body). Note, however, that (per WP:LEADCITE) any statement about Trump that's likely to get challenged must have an inline citation everywhere it's mentioned in the lead. So it looks like we may have some work to do. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC) 15:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree w/ striking the parenthetical (the lede is no place for chronicling the evolution of a suggestion). (I anticipated MelanieN would object if "Muslim" were dropped.) IHTS (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"I doubt if even Trump would recognize that as his position." No consensus, MelanieN. The relevant part of the main clause in the sentence closely paraphrases the corresponding text in one of Trump's seven official position papers. And Trump is said to be perhaps overly concerned with control over the details of any document that may have legal consequences -- for instance, a formally adopted platform position paper. (Once approved, the position becomes official and the paper can be used as evidence in legal proceedings.) Compare with Trump's speeches, which are so self-contradictory in important parts that no reasonable person could claim to have believed and been (significantly) misled by anything he says in them.

Looks like Reuters just scooped me on this analysis! "Trump Leaves Some on Wall Street Wary and Confused." 05:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"It's basically boilerplate from a position paper, probably written by staff." Apparent consensus. It's basically wording from one of the seven Donald J Trump Position papers written by Donald J Trump for President campaign staff on the candidate's behalf, adopted by the candidate's campaign (around August 16, 2015), and published on the candidate's campaign site. Consequently, it's basically wording from his official campaign platform.

"The recent wording that he has used, both in writing and in speeches, and has been widely publicized is 'suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies'."

Yes; and because it's been so widely publicized, there ought to be at least one source, somewhere, that can be given to verify that it's been adopted as part of his campaign platform. If not, it has to get tagged and towed, per WP:V ("Any material challenged must be supported by inline citations") and WP:LEADCITE ("Any statements about living persons that are challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead").

Meanwhile, here's some text that more closely approximates the language in the relevant position paper:

"His platform includes measures to ... increase [or, augment] standards for the admission of refugees, asylum-seekers, and other noncitizens from designated areas."

Here "noncitizen" = anyone who's required to get a visa for admission. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would mostly support IHTS's proposed wording. If I could tweak and simplify the Muslim line, how about "Early in the campaign he suggested a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States; he later modified his proposal to one which would exclude immigrants from territories having "a proven history of ..." That leaves open the disputed question of whether the "terror countries" proposal replaces the "Muslim" ban or leaves it in place in a more restricted form. One other possible friendly amendment: I really think " "real" immigration reform" should say " "real" immigration reform including a proposal to build a wall along the Mexican border". That really is his best-known and most consistent platform, and it can be cited to any of his speeches or directly to his website. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  You (MelanieN & Dervorguilla) still aren't together re whether "Muslim ban" s/b mentioned in lede. (If that history is included, it lengthens the text, and I don't think a parenthetical can be avoided.) Anyway here's updated suggested text (BTW in Trump's RNC speech he said "nations" instead of "territories") ... Trump opposes "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes renegotiation of U.S.–China trade, "real" immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of Veterans' Care, and tax reform. Trump is a strong proponent of "law and order". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S., Europe, or allies until vetting mechanisms can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.) Trump believes that defeating ISIS "fast" is mandatory. Ok, IHTS (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• We do indeed have a nontrivial WP:BALASPS problem here. (Strive to treat each aspect of the subject with a weight appropriate to its weight in the body of reliable sources on the subject.)

As it happens, I came across a preeminently reliable source that could (randomly) be taken as representative of the body of preeminently reliable sources on Trump's platform. From BBC News, "US Election: What Would a Donald Trump Presidency Look Like?" (July 21, 2016):

"Here are five policy areas where Mr Trump has bucked the Republican line. [675 words total.] Gay rights [17.6%]. National security [18.1%]. Immigration [19.3%]. Trade [20.7%]. Foreign policy [24.3%]."

If you analyze the '771 draft by IHTS (114 words total), you get: 0% – 14% – 60% – 19% – 5%. We could rebalance by removing all of the parenthetical material about historical immigration policy and substituting material about Trump's 'weightiest' policies in the gay-rights and foreign-policy areas. (Like: 'Trump has opposed a state law limiting transgender persons' access to bathroom facilities...' 'Trump maintains that the U.S. must have an "unpredictable" foreign policy to keep its adversaries from anticipating its actions...' Or whatever language you think fits here.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The "guide" I used in above draft (for better or worse) was to include after "platform" only items listed under "Positions" on the Trump campaign website. (Beyond that there are so many other position points that could be mentioned besides those I did, so what guide for inclusion/priority/weight? Including: recapturing manufacturing jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, modernizing the military, reforming education, cutting waste, national debt, etc.) IHTS (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Good work, IHTS, I endorse this wording. A couple of minor tweaks: don't capitalize Veterans Care. And instead of tax reform it would be more accurate to say "tax reductions"; that was certainly all he talked about in his acceptance speech. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. And if somebody objects to "nations" he has also said "areas of the world". --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I changed "tax reductions" to "tax cuts" (originally chose "tax reform" to incorporate tax code simplification, but cuts prob carries more weight), and kept the more common word "countries" (= "nations"). Ok, IHTS (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Support per WP:CON. I maintain my WP:BALASPS concern that we're overweighting his immigration policy, but this does look like a reasonable compromise. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC) This does look like a reasonable compromise -- to us, the 3 editors still contributing to the discussion at "Term 'terrorist countries'". But it may not look like a reasonable compromise to editors who haven't been following this thread for the understandable reason that the term 'terrorist countries' no longer appears in the article. Not a consensus edit yet, but a good edit nonetheless, and one that needed to be made without delay. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh? I don't think Trump himself uses the term "terrorist countries" much. It seems much more appropriate for us to use the wording he himself uses, doesn't it? That was pretty much the direction this discussion took. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

100% correct, MelanieN. I didn't make clear in my amended comment that I was talking about our final draft of the passage in graf 3 where we're trying to provide a compilation of his most important positions. (We do have a consensus about the topic named in the section heading: the term "terrorist countries" isn't nearly as appropriate as the wording Trump actually uses.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump Sr?

Given that there is a Donald Trump Jr., isn't the presidential candidate's full name Donald John Trump Sr.? Genealogizer (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Not unless he chooses to use that style. And afaik he does not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that Trump Jr has a son called Donald John Trump III. By your rationale, that would make Trump Jr's name Donald John Trump II. But he doesn't use such a style, and it's not up to WP to create one for him.

(I can't believe I'm having anything whatsoever to do with Donald Trump, but hey, Wikipedia calls on all of us to make extreme sacrifices sometimes ...). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

John Barron (pseudonym)

I created the article John Barron (pseudonym) given coverage of Trump's use of this name. Improvements/expansion welcome. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I marked for CSD, if it's notable, it can be included in this article. But we don't need an entire article just saying that Trump used a pseudonym. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles go into detail about how and when the pseudonym was used. There is more to the story than just "Trump used a pseudonym". I don't think CSD is appropriate, but you can take to AfD if you feel strongly. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Another Believer: This one pseudonym isn't enough to support an article But I suggest you expand it to include his other pseudonyms, including John Miller which got a lot of publicity in May, and move it to Donald Trump pseudonyms. That might (or might not) pass the notability test. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Great idea! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed the speedy deletion tag saying the article was under development and asking for 24 hours before re-tagging. However, the article is going to have to demonstrate significance by then. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Well, shoot, AB, I thought YOU were going to use the additional time I gave you to expand the article! Turned out I had to do it myself. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Oh, wow, thank you so much. You've shortened my forever-long "to do" list by a notch. Much appreciated! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Alleged racism

The following was removed from the lede, but I suggest to move it to the body, under the 'Other personal information" section or something of the like. I don't want to reinstate contentious content without getting consensus though:

Trump is often described as a racist individual by, among others, various politicians, news media, and academics.

Henry ^TALK 17:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is calling him, the individual, a racist. What they are saying in these sources is that some of the things he SAYS are racist. But either way, I generally feel that name-calling or inflammatory labeling like this does not belong in a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Source #5 is calling him, the individual, racist, in my mind. The other sources are more referring to his statements (as far as my Internet connection can show them, that is). These two things are not the same (inferring the first from the second is WP:SYNTH), I am dubious that #5 has enough "source strength" to justify putting such a strong statement in the lead section, the others most likely don't.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. WaPo meets RS and is generally reliable for a BLP, but as per policy and longstanding tradition, serious claims like being a racist require serious and significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Moreover, the WaPo source isn't even an actual article, but rather explicitly marked as an opinion piece. It isn't even attributed by the Editorial board, but rather has a byline attributing it to one columnist who has been criticized for some very questionable writings multiple times in the past. At this time, calling Trump a racist is not supported by the sourcing required for such a weighty claim. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Refusing to rent to black apartment applicants is a racist action, not just a racist statement. --Nbauman (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of the sources do not describe Trump as a racist, but his comments. Furthermore, per WP:WEASEL, we should not say "is often described as," which is a conclusion of the editor not found in any of the sources and therefore violates WP:NOR. I would point out too that Mexican is not a race but a nationality, just as American is. TFD (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Not only is "Mexican" not a race, neither are "Latino" or "Hispanic". Not only are "Latino" and "Hispanic" not races, neither are even ethnicities. The media wildly ignores this and labels all three as "race". Amazing how the media supports drama and lack of education. Even PBS. IHTS (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – These accusations are mostly based on fantasies of the commentators and the echo chamber of the media circus (which Trump loves to provoke, granted). Look at the numerous people from minorities who have been employed in his businesses. Look at his promotion of women to executive positions, even decades ago. Look at the convention speakers he invited over the last few days: plenty of women, black people, latinos, Asian immigrants, a gay billionaire, prayers from 4 different religions, etc. I don't think any prior GOP candidate achieved such diversity. — JFG ^talk 02:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. My general view about name-calling, denunciations, and other attacks on a BLP subject is that if an editor really really thinks they belong in Wikipedia then we should not censor the material, but rather we should follow WP:Preserve by including the material in the encyclopedia, but at the BLP of the attacker rather than the BLP of the attackee, except in very unusual cases where the attack is very very widely covered by reliable sources. That's especially advisable where the attacker is less notable than the attackee, because then the attacker's BLP usually can accommodate the material more easily than the attackee's BLP without issues of undue weight arising. Also, the proposed language is way too vague, since it doesn't give any clue about which races he's allegedly racist against.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Question - Are we actually going to need an ivote here? This is ridiculous. Close as "Absurd". Doc talk 05:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  It can't be closed until Jack Upland adds his customary sarcastic comment/humor. IHTS (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Screw that. Why do editors who are unabashed haters of Trump get to steer the content of this supposedly neutral article? It's a joke. It just defies NPOV. Doc talk 07:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Well, it seems settled then. Henry ^TALK 07:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Not a rapist, not a racist, large hands, large signature. Everything's placid in the lily pond.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Nothing about speech plagiarism? It was really, really big news... Doc talk 08:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  (Just in case this was a real comment rather than your usual sarcasm): The plagiarism was big news about Melania and is in her article. It's also the convention article. There's no justification for mentioning it in the Donald Trump article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox: Person or politician?

Should the infobox use person-infobox parameters or politician-infobox parameters?

A. Politician

The infobox should use the "officeholder/politician" infobox parameters. Reasoning:

1. The Trump article should be comparable to the Clinton article (rev 73106517), and the Clinton infobox uses officeholder/politician parameters.

2. If Trump has been more responsible for leading the Donald J Trump for President campaign than the Trump Organization business, his primary occupation is that of 'politician'.

B. Person

The infobox should use the "person" infobox parameters. Reasoning:

1. Clinton is a former officeholder; Trump isn't.

2. If Trump has been more responsible for leading the Trump Organization business than the Donald J Trump for President campaign, his primary occupation is that of entrepreneur (or whatever), not politician.

C. Person parameters with some politician parameters

The infobox should use a person template with an embedded officeholder/politician module. Reasoning:

1. From Trump's perspective, he studied business science, not political science; and his "usual or principal work" is in business, not politics.

2. But from the general public's perspectives, Trump has more significance as a political nominee than as a business entrepreneur. So the infobox should include elements of both.

___

Some consequences:

Prop A. Signature size: 128px. Website: Donald J Trump for President, donaldjtrump.com/about

Prop B. Signature size: 150px. Website: Trump Organization, trump.com/biography

Prop C: Signature size: 128px or 150px. Website: Donald J Trump for President, Trump Organization, or both

-- 03:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support B or C. oppose A. The Donald J Trump for President campaign itself gives Trump's title and affiliation as "Chairman and President, The Trump Organization". --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Just B. No change from the current infobox. If he gets elected President, we can switch to a "politician/office holder" infobox, but at this point he is a businessperson and candidate; he has never held office, so what do you need the officeholder parameters for? Clinton, in contrast, has held both elected and appointive public office so the "officeholder" infobox is appropriate for her. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

New image proposal

I think we should use this image is the main in infobox because it's the best we have. I know it is from 2012 but he still looks the same. Clinton's image is from 2009. Your opinions?

Proposed image

Itsyoungrapper (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• He looks like Liberace in that photo. No. IHTS (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• There are probably some quality photos of Trump at the 2016 convention, so let's focus on new photos rather than re-hashing the old ones.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Seems ok to me, but I'm sure there are better and more recent photos that are free images. Remember, free images are always preferred over non-free image types. Henry ^TALK 18:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've looked on Flickr and tried to find some but there aren't any from his campaign trails. If there were I would certainly propose it. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure: That photo looks a little better, but it doesn't seem to be spontaneous like the one in the article. I don't think it is worth changing. FabulousFerd (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• If this photo had been taken more recently I would have supported its use - maybe it should be used somewhere else in the article? As its four years out of date however I don't think it can be the main infobox picture. Ebonelm (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• This is the one we should use: Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove Politico

The editor who wants Politico removed for being biased needs to make his case. I have not encountered any reliability or bias problems with Politico on the other politicians pages that I've edited. Until the editor has shown that Politico is not a reliable, non-partisan source, the Politico reference that was removed should be restored. The editor who made the accusation has made a series of ridiculous and inexplicable pro-Trump edits to this page, which casts further doubt on his accusation being in good faith. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't actually need the Politico reference. I've restored the material, without the Politico reference - and added the other editor's new material as well. --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. My philosophy, which is also the case in the section below this: If somebody objects to a source, don't go to the mat over it, just find another source. If the material is worth including here, there will always be multiple sources--MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC).

I see where you're coming from but I think it's a mistake to pander to editors who don't have a leg to stand on. It might encourage disingenuous claims, and make editors let disingenuous editors influence them as they consider contributing content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN's comment is worth considering, Snooganssnoogans. Also consider that per WP:BIASED, a reliable source isn't required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Per WP:SOURCE, it is supposed to be mainstream (at least if it's used to support a challenged statement in a BLP). And some editors would reasonably question whether Politico is mainstream or whether a particular article in Politico has been fact-checked.

These five sources are the most mainstream as measured by circulation: Reuters, AP, BBC News, Time, WSJ. And their news articles are usually fact-checked. (The opinion pieces are not.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 05:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If the specific Politico article is bad, I think it's fair to delete it (and the same applies to any source, regardless of how respected the outlet happens to be). That was not the editor's complaint though. Nor did he complain that Politico wasn't mainstream enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, Snooganssnoogans, you have my recommendation: don't make Wikipedia into a WP:battleground. Don't make it a matter of "principle" or "pandering" or "encouraging disingenuous claims" over a trivial matter like one source where multiple sources are available, or the size of a signature. These political pages are charged enough as it is without going to war over something where perfectly acceptable alternatives are available. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The minuscule sz the sig was shrunk to wasn't "a trivial matter" in my view, obviously. You obviously disagree. (OK. So when my opinion differs from yours, re anything, starting now, it's OK then that I publicly characterize to others that your interest is in trivia and your opinion is trivial!? Good one!) Perhaps you s/ hat that thread and label the hat "Trivia"!? (Never mind two editors relentlessly bashed me over the default long-standing size for no valid reasons, mocked and ridiculed, extending the thread without end. And opened a WP:EWN. And reverted almost daily.) IHTS (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm one of the two editors mentioned by IHTS. I ought to acknowledge that what he says here is not wholly unmerited, MelanieN.

The matter was resolved. No blood, no foul. Let's not bring it up again.

I otherwise agree with your reply to Snooganssnoogans's comment. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. Clearly the signature issue wasn't trivial to those engaged in it. and I shouldn't have brought it up because it blurred my point: not to take a stand about things that DON'T really matter. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think Politico is sufficiently reliable for BLPs. Particularly in the case of the US election. If it wasn't a BLP issue I'd be indifferent but not in this case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Housing discrimination case

@CFredkin: You removed this sentence from the article: According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored." - because you said the source, a book by a former employee, was unreliable. Let me suggest the following sources instead: The Washington Post, The New York Times, The U.S. Justice Department. Those are enough to make a large section, but I think we can get by with a sentence or two. That is, unless you think it deserves a larger airing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The suit was settled without a finding of guilt on the part of the Trump Organization, and there is no evidence that Trump himself was personally involved. I believe this sort of content is usually covered as a footnote.CFredkin (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Objection, Your Honor! The term "colored" is found in the Post story but not in the Times story or the Justice Department press release (which relates to "emotional-support animals"). Also, a Justice Department press release generally isn't used as a reliable source. (For a major exception, see WP:SPS regarding data compilations.)

In this case, plaintiff Justice Department's position was never upheld by a court; and the Post mentions that it was never upheld by a court. So we'd have to include that clarification in our article.

In common-law countries like the U.S. (not France), one attorney's allegations are as authoritative as another attorney's -- including a government attorney's. Here, defendant Trump's attorney made allegations about the plaintiff, and the Post reported them. So we'd have no reason not to include at least one of them in our article too. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

As a short-term compromise, we could (and probably should!) cite the Times article as a source for the material about Trump's having received prominent media exposure for decades. (One of the captions says, "Readers of The Times have known him for 42 years.") --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason not to report what the Justice Department said. Certainly it is only an allegation but that is how we report it. TFD (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No offense, TFD, but the reason we never report allegations as being more than allegations has nothing to do with WP:V...

There seem to be three questions here. (1) Should we act as a 'conduit' for the claim that was alleged? (2) If so, should we act as a conduit for the counterclaim that was alleged? (3) And if so, should we mention that neither the claim nor the counterclaim was upheld by a court?

For the reasons given, I would say "no"; "(if so, yes)"; and "(if so, yes)". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We decide whether anything belongs in Wikipedia by WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

Multiple WP:RSs have reported the Justice Department allegations, so it's a significant viewpoint and according to WP:WEIGHT should be fairly represented in the article.

So according to Wikipedia policies your answer to question (1) is "Yes."

Also according to WP:WEIGHT we are required to represent all sides.

So according to Wikipedia policies your answer to question (2) is "Yes."

I assume Trump's advocates have said in some WP:RS that the claim wasn't upheld in court.

So according to Wikipedia policies your answer to question (3) is "Yes."

(BTW, most lawsuits are settled without a judicial determination in the courts. WP:RSs regularly report the allegations made in court. Using court records is a complete defense against libel. I would like to know any Wikipedia policies that excludes them.)--Nbauman (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You brought up an important point, Nbauman: "Using court records is a complete defense against libel." True in some states -- but not in others.

"The media can be liable for the republication of a libelous statement made by another person or entity but quoted in a news article... Just because someone else said it does not mean that a news organization cannot be sued for republishing it..."

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The First Amendment Handbook.

Here's my personal read on Trump's viewpoint, based on the Post and Times stories:

"'What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black,' Trump wrote." Trump reportedly believed that renting to welfare cases would cause his mostly lower- and middle-income tenants (both white and black) to flee. But he was "satisfied that the agreement did not 'compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant'." --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, no offense taken, but I never mentioned V. Certainly we should not report anything unless it is sourced but whether we report it depends on weight. Mentioning an allegation is not the same thing as acting as a conduit for it, unless we state the allegation as fact. We have articles for example about conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, but that does not mean we endorse them. TFD (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

True, we're not endorsing them, TFD, just mentioning them. But that in itself can amount to republishing. From AP, Legal Principles of Publication:

"Liability for republication: the 'conduit' fallacy.- A common misconception is that one who directly quotes a statement containing libelous allegations is immune from suit so long as the quoted statement was actually made, accurately transcribed, and clearly attributed to the original speaker. This is not so."

When we were children, we understood this principle intuitively (as it applies to retelling slanderous allegations about other children). It takes a semester or two of expository writing to make us forget.

Happily, the principle does not apply here (as far as I know). No need to call Saul!!! --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I brought up libel, since it's turned into a distraction. But you have quoted selectively from the First Amendment Handbook:

Fair report

Libelous statements made by others in certain settings often are conditionally privileged if the reporter, in good faith, accurately reports information of public interest. This privilege usually applies to material from official meetings such as judicial proceedings, legislative hearings, city council meetings and grand jury deliberations. In most states, accurate reports of arrests, civil and criminal trials and official statements made to, by and about law enforcement officials are privileged....

Wikipedia rules and guidelines as I stated above say that anything that is reported by multiple WP:RSs belongs in the article, along with opposing viewpoints. Wikipedia rules and guidelines govern, not your personal opinion of fairness or whether "allegations" belong. Allegations belong in Wikipedia if they are repeated by multiple WP:RSs. You have not shown that the deletion is justified under Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

Roy Cohen in his press statements, by ignoring the significant Justice Department charges, deceptively made it look as if the issue was discrimination against welfare recipients, rather than discrimination against blacks. The way this entry is edited now, we also deceptively make it look as if the issue was welfare recipients, not blacks. To stop being deceptive, we must state the main charges against Trump: That he discriminated against blacks.

I think we have a consensus to restore it. Is there anyone other than User:Dervorguilla who wants to delete it? If so, explain how that decision is jusitfied by Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Otherwise I'm going to put it back. --13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The housing case is more fully covered at Legal affairs of Donald Trump. See WP:Summary style. Therefore, we don't need to list all the details here about things he was never found guilty of. So it appears that CFredkin and myself are two additional editors who think this is inappropriate for the main text of this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't have consensus yet. Here is what used to be in the article: Trump initially came to public attention in 1973 when the Trump Organization was accused by the Justice Department of violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings. According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored." The question is whether to include the second sentence; we still have the first sentence, which says the Justice Department sued the Trumps for fair housing violations. That may be enough; if we are going to go on to detail what Justice said, we would also have to detail what the Trumps said and the item would become overly long. After reading the extensive discussion here, I think we should keep just the first sentence, and replace the book source with one of the sources I listed at the beginning of this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree. But, of course, we can't say that he was accused without indicating that there was never any conviction (Trump settled the charges in 1975 without admitting guilt).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We could add "the case was settled out of court". I think (without taking the time to look) that the sources I proposed do say that much. If people want more detail than that, they can go the "legal cases" article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, reporting allegations made in official court records is not libellous. Newspapers routinely report criminal charges made against people before final judgment. As a general rule, we are fairly safe using mainstream media as sources, because they take great care to avoid libel. TFD (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

True, they report when charges are filed, before the case is closed. But AFTER the case is closed, they generally mention the outcome as well as the charges. The sources I listed above all say the case was settled. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

In scientific articles, WP:NOTJOURNAL applies: "While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links"

I think the same rule applies in articles like this. You know that most readers will not follow the links, either to a footnote with expanded text or to a "Legal affairs of Donald Trump" article (which is a WP:POVFORK if you remove all the unfavorable information in the original article and move it to the forked article.)

It's not enough to say that "the Trump Organization was accused by the Justice Department of violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings," without also giving the specific violations: "the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored." That's a serious charge -- not offering apartments to black people. These specific violations are supported by multiple WP:RS, which is the criteria for including information in a Wikipedia article. The fact that the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks is important information. This was the underlying violation. If you don't know that you don't know what the case was about. It's misleading to talk about the welfare issue without revealing that the original charge was for refusing to rent to black people. If you're so worried about becoming overly long then take out the reference to welfare recipients. --Nbauman (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

" The fact that the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks is important information". The thing is, that is NOT a fact - it is an allegation. Denied by the Trumps, and never established as fact in a court of law. At the very least, if we include the disputed sentence, we should also add a sentence saying "The Trumps strongly denied the accusations, and the case was settled out of court." --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, now I see the sentence you are referring to. I missed it earlier. It follows the others and says "After an unsuccessful countersuit filed by attorney Roy Cohn,[33] Trump settled the charges in 1975 without admitting guilt, saying he was satisfied that the agreement did not "compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant."[34]" With that already in the article, we certainly could include Justice's allegations. Both or neither. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, are you saying that we should not mention the allegations of not renting to blacks after the case is settled, even though the allegations were announced by the Justice Department, are in the public record, and were (and still are) widely reported in WP:RS?

What reason under Wikipedia rules and guidelines do you have for not including them?

For Wikipedia, the criteria for including a fact is that it has been widely reported in WP:RS. That's one of the Five Pillars WP:5P2 of Wikipedia. "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

What about the Bill Cosby case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby#Sexual_assault_allegations Most of that is allegations that were not resolved in court and settled. Should Wikipedia eliminate all the Bill Cosby allegations? --Nbauman (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I am saying that we can include the Justice allegation sentence, provided we also have the "Trump denial and out of court settlement" sentence. We currently do have that sentence, so I would support restoring the Justice allegations (with a better source). --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, here's the sentence at issue: "the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored.""

This has been reported by multiple WP:RSs.

I think that sentence belongs in the article, because of the multiple WP:RS. Do you object? --Nbauman (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually the sentence at issue is " According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored."". I agree with including it as long as the bolded portion is also included. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I object to including it because the place for such stuff that was never proved and never admitted is (if anywhere at Wikipedia) at Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Lots of people have accused Trump of lots of things, but I think this main biography does not have room for the accusations that didn't pan out. Just like counterpart Democratic BLPs. The goal here has been made quite clear by omission of "according to the Justuce Department", but even inclusion of that phrase is misleading since the Justice Department later backed off (without even any allegation of extreme carelessness).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant, the criteria for including something in Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability and WP:RS, it is not whether something was proved by a court decision or some other level of evidence that you demand. What are the specific Wikipedia rules and guidelines that say that it should be removed?

The Bill Cosby entry contains "stuff that was never proved" in court and never will be because of the statute of limitations. I think that WP:Verifiability and WP:RS is enough to leave it in. Do you think Wikipedia rules require us to delete that stuff from the Bill Cosby article? --Nbauman (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll say yet again, I have no objection to including these particular details in Wikipedia. See Legal affairs of Donald Trump and see WP:Summary style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What specifically does WP:Summary style say that would require us to delete the sentence, "According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored."" from this article and move it to Legal affairs of Donald Trump? --Nbauman (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we please refrain from using Politifact?

I see Politifact articles are often used in Trump's article. Politifact's parent company openly endorses and donates to Hillary Clinton. There is a clear bias in their articles. Yes, sometimes what they write is relatively objective, but there is a very clear bias other times. Can we just please refrain from using them from now on? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What? Politifact is operated by the Tampa Bay Times which has won multiple Pulitzer Prizes. Nevertheless, you need to take this to RSN. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course we will not refrain from using it. If we said we cannot use any media that is linked to any parent company which support one candidate or the other, then we would have virtually no media remaining. So the answer is an obvious "no!". Jeppiz (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This comes up at times on politics pages and is AFAIK always rejected because the Tampa Bay Times is a reputable, reliable source by any standard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you may as well refrain from using The Washington Times, well known for its conservative bias. I think the consensus at Wikipedia is to use any reliable source even if it has a known (or suspected bias). This forces us to cite dueling sources on occasion; is this right, guys? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We do use respected sources that have a conservative or liberal bias (although I wouldn't necessarily include the Moonie Times as a "respected source"). But nobody has alleged that Politifact has a bias; the only objection given here seems to be its ownership. As pointed out by Jeppiz, all papers have an ownership; the question is whether the paper has "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". Politifact does have that reputation. It is widely quoted and respected by media of all stripes. --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Washington Times is known for its conservative bias but that's not the problem. Nobody minds using the Wall Street Journal on US politics pages or the Financial Times or Economist on UK politics pages, despite their alleged biases. That's because those sources are reliable and respected. The problem with the Washington Times is that it's rubbish and unreliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Bias and reliability are two separate issues. Sources must be reliable, Wikipedia articles must be neutral. TFD (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

And neither has been alleged as a problem with Politifact, so maybe we can end this discussion? Clearly there is consensus that Politifact can be used as a source. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

PolitiFact is an invaluable source - and any suggestion that somehow it is meaningfully "biased" against Trump is utter nonsense. As to the Tampa Bay Times and PolitiFact: as is well known, newspapers maintain a separation between their news side and their editorial side. The fact that a newspaper's editorial board and editorial page may take a certain view says absolutely nothing about the quality of the newsroom.

As for the Tampa Bay Times: the newspaper has won ten Pulitzer Prizes and is the largest-circulating newspaper in the third- or fourth-largest state. Moreover, it is, uniquely, owned not by a for-profit media company, but by a nonprofit school of journalism, the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. I have seen no evidence at all that the Poynter Institute "openly endorses" or "donates" to any political candidate, and claims to the contrary are irresponsible. Neutrality^talk 21:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor removes Trump's own clarification of position, editor goes with his own preferred position

I see absolutely no reason why ThiefofBagdad deleted this text: "Trump insisted that the new proposal was not a "rollback" of his initial proposal to ban all Muslim immigrants. He said, "In fact, you could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territory.""

Given the confusion surrounding Trump's Muslim ban and his failure to put out a specific plan, it's absolutely essential that this context be included. It's absolutely unacceptable for ThiefofBagdad to decide which of the numerous positions Trump has proposed on this issue should be included and which not. I ask for this content to be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Snooganssnoogan. I was about to write about this myself. User:ThiefOfBagdad has been making a lot of changes based on their own interpretation. For example, they changed "countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States" to "countries that have been compromised by terrorism", saying that was the wording Trump used in his acceptance speech. When I reverted to the previous consensus-approved version, they restored their own version, saying "Trump has changed his views on many things, which is why we've decided to stick with what he said in his RNC acceptance speech. Also, he said it's an "expansion", then continued to contradict himself. We're sticking with what was said at the RNC." Who is "we" and when did "we" decide that? Not on this page, where such decisions need to be made. ThiefOfBagdad did not participate at all in the discussions here. ThiefOfBagdad, I call your attention to the Discretionary Sanctions on this page, and I remind you that you cannot just insist on your own version and ignore consensus. Repeated reverting, or reinsertion of disputed material, can be a blockable offense at an article which is under Discretionary Sanctions. You must reach consensus on the talk page, and not keep reverting in the meantime. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I see that they added an invisible comment saying "DO NOT use "Muslim ban". Trump has adapted his immigration plan. The lead is no place for scrapped or conflicting proposals made by candidates and it's already discussed below in the relevant section.". I deleted it, as being one person's opinion and not consensus-based. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

My names seems to have been revoked here. In accordance with the WP:BOLD policy, I felt completely in my right as a regular editor of Trump's page to undo Snooganssnoogans' edit. Trump, in his RNC acceptance speech (watched by nearly 35 million people), said: "We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place." The "vetting mechanisms" part can be hard to understand for some readers, so the lead states Trump wants to "suspend immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." I think it's hard for anyone to disagree up to this point.

Now, Trump went on Meet The Press today and was asked if his new statment should be interpreted as a 'rollback' from his Muslim ban. Famously, Trump has trouble admitting to his own faults (he has admitted that himself) and obviously he didn't say it should be interpreted as a 'rollback', so he said 'you could say it's an expansion'. Yes, you could say that, but that's obviously not what it is. Why not? Because seconds later he states: 'I'm talking territory instead of Muslim', 'I live with our Constitution' (which would prohibit a Muslim ban) and 'We're making it territorial'. It's clear the Muslim ban is not happening, and it's been scrapped for a while now. Back in June, Trump gave a speech in which he said: "I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats." Yes, the plan has again changed slightly since then, but the Muslim ban has been scrapped for a while now. Yes, Trump's words can be confusing, and if taken directly without context from a headline, they can be misinterpreted. As of now, even his own campaign has refused to acknowledge any further plans for a "Muslim ban". I hope I've made myself clear and I hope we can finally put aside this "Muslim ban" that was proposed last year and is now rather clearly scrapped. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Somehow that section has gotten totally away from the wording that we hammered out, after much discussion, above on this page. I have restored that consensus-based version and said that any changes to it should be agreed to at this page. This is the version I restored:

Trump opposes "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes renegotiation of U.S.–China trade, "real" immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of veterans' care, and tax cuts. Trump is a strong proponent of "law and order". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S. until vetting mechanisms can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.)

Snoongassnogan, what was it you wanted to add? Personally I would like to add something about ISIS, because he made such a point of it in his acceptance speech. He mentioned "a goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism". How about: Trump is a strong proponent of "law and order" and has set a goal of "destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism"? That would lead naturally into the immigration ban in the next sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

That section barely takes into account the things Trump said in his RNC speech, you know, that speeched watched by nearly 35 million people and considered the most important speech a presidential candidate can give besides their presidential victory speech? The amount of "quotation marks" in that lead is disturbing and incredibly misleading. It misleads people into thinking that NAFTA or TPP is "unfair", or that his immigration policies are "real", or that he's in favor of "law and order". It's completely subjective, misleading, and doesn't belong in the page, much less the lead. In his RNC speech, Trump did not even mention renegotiating U.S.–China trade in his speech and it has never been a major part of his plans.Also, it doesn't even say 'his platform includes'. It acts like that's all Trump stands for. And it doesn't even mention ISIS, one of his biggest topics since 2015 behind immigration. Also, how is having a scrapped position of his even allowed in this lead, that's absolutely ridiculous. "Vetting mechanisms" is also way too difficult for the average reader to understand (please pay attention to Wikipedia's policies). This version is, in my opinion, way better than what we currently have:

His platform includes combatting illegal immigration by building a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, reforming healthcare by replacing the Affordable Care Act, rebuilding the U.S. military while improving veterans' care, opposing trade agreements that are unfavorable to American workers, and tackling Islamic terrorism by defeating ISIS and suspending immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists.

Could we please reach consensus on using this, even if it's slightly adjusted. The current lead is an outright disaster. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

NYT: Is Donald Trump a Racist?

Here's the Nicholas Kristoff story. I'm putting it here for reference. I'll come back to it later.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html
Is Donald Trump a Racist?
Nicholas Kristof
New York Times
JULY 23, 2016

To prove the discrimination, blacks were repeatedly dispatched as testers to Trump apartment buildings to inquire about vacancies, and white testers were sent soon after. Repeatedly, the black person was told that nothing was available, while the white tester was shown apartments for immediate rental.

A former building superintendent working for the Trumps explained that he was told to code any application by a black person with the letter C, for colored, apparently so the office would know to reject it. A Trump rental agent said the Trumps wanted to rent only to “Jews and executives,” and discouraged renting to blacks.

Donald Trump furiously fought the civil rights suit in the courts and the media, but the Trumps eventually settled on terms that were widely regarded as a victory for the government. Three years later, the government sued the Trumps again, for continuing to discriminate. --Nbauman (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)