Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:06, 17 February 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:Vital article

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Donald Trump. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Donald Trump at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Friendly search suggestions

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This was the most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of December 6–12, 2015, October 9–15, October 16–22, November 6–12, November 13–19, 2016, January 15–21 and January 22–28, 2017, according to the Top 25 Report.

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Detailed traffic statistics

Current consensus

NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per this discussion including an admin. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as ], item .

1. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (link 1, link 2)

2. Show birthplace as "New York City" in the infobox. No state or country. (link)

3. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (link)

4. Lead phrasing of Trump gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College and receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide, without quoting numbers. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15)

5. Use Donald Trump's net worth value of $4.5 billion, and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (2016 edition), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link)

6. Do not mention the anonymous Jane Doe rape lawsuit, as it was withdrawn. (link)

7. Include "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false." in the lead. (link 1, link 2)

8. Mention that Trump is the first president elected without prior military or governmental service. (link)

9. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (link)

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (link 1, link 2)

11. The lead sentence is Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (link)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 days, manual archival is allowed for closed discussions after 24 hours. (link)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (link)

15. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense and count of non-plurality presidents. No new changes should be applied without debate. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4)

Open RfCs

None.

RfC: Election summary in the lede

Policy arguments: There were no objective policy arguments advanced in the discussion other than general opinion statements as to which option better encapsulated WP policies like NPOV, etc. Ultimately, no policy argument was better advanced by one side than by any other.
Polling: By breadth of support, 14 editors supported option #3, 7 editors supported the status quo as it existed when the RfC was opened, 6 supported option #2, 3 supported option #1, and 2 advanced some other opinion.
Polling, revisited: In attempting to divine a consensus, I considered that none of those who indicated support for option #1 necessarily opposed the status quo version and the two are extremely similar. This still didn't establish a clear consensus, however. I also examined the edit history of each participant in the discussion and, though there were some cases of SPAs !voting, assigning a lower weight to their !votes or dismissing them entirely would also have not materially impacted the ability to divine a consensus.
The Situation: As it stands, at present, there is no demonstrable superiority of argumentation, nor is there a consensus of support (or, in fact, even a simple majority of support) for any single option and - except for option "status quo" and #1 - the three options presented are very different.
Final thoughts: Unfortunately, this RfC is closed with no consensus. However, closure with no consensus seems to preference that the status quo - as it existed when the RfC was opened - should probably be maintained pending a more decisive outcome in a future discussion. That wording was as follows:
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fourth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.
Whether or not that is, indeed, what occurs, can be separately decided by the community.

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

Close requested 8 February. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read both versions of this edit, intended for the lede, and indicate in the survey which of the two you believe best conveys the outcome of the election. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in which neither candidate received a majority of the national popular vote. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first president without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth president who received less of the national popular vote than his opponent.

In the November 8, 2016, general election, Trump won a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Trump won a majority of Electoral College votes, while Clinton won a plurality of the nationwide vote. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with fewer votes nationwide.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Neither candidate earned a majority of the popular vote, and Trump garnered fewer ballots than Clinton nationwide. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service.

Adding a third option which strives to take into account all objections in the "Rephrasing" discussion above. — JFG 02:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey: Election summary in the lede

• Support #1 or #3 but would advise changing in #1 the last instance of "of the national popular vote" to "popular support" "the fifth president who received less of the national popular vote than his opponent" to "the fifth president elected with less popular support than his opponent". Option #2 has several problems, including that the terms "nationwide vote" and "votes nationwide" confusingly describe both the electoral and popular votes, so I oppose option #2.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Changing to Support #3 only, in the interest of achieving consensus sooner rather than later. Version 3 will suffice, even though it omits the info about how many times (five) this has happened before.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #1 and disagree with the suggestion above; I think the existing wording "of the national popular vote" is better than the vague weasel term "popular support" (which could mean anything, even polling results). I do think it is good to mention both the lack of a majority of the popular vote for either candidate, and the fact that she got more/he got less (whichever way it is put), and #1 does both. I Oppose #2 for two reasons: it uses the word "plurality," which most people opposed, and the wording " the fifth elected with fewer votes nationwide" is unclear/confusing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: I still prefer #1, but #3 is also OK. I prefer to say "the fifth president who", The "fifth president" is in the text of the article, so I am OK with omitting it from the lede if that is consensus. I don't much like the phrase "fewer ballots" although I recognize it as an attempt to avoid saying "popular vote" twice. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Changing to Support #3 in the interest of achieving consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #2. Hillary did win a plurality of the popular vote. The problem with #1 is that it states, "neither candidate won the majority of votes." This seems misleading, and could be misinterpreted as not winning more popular votes. Using the term 'Plurality" solves the problem. True, she didn't win a big majority, but she won more than Trump, and reliable sources take note of that. In addition, #2 does mention Trump won the Electoral College . This coupled with Hillary's plurality seems to perfectly describe the outcome of the election. More people voted for Hillary while Trump won more states. This is an important distinction as Trump is only the 5th person to win the presidency with fewer popular votes. Added: Also, calling Hillary an opponent diminishes the fact that she won her presidential candidacy. Candidate Clinton; not Opponent Clinton. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 as the best effort towards accommodating the remarks of all participants so far. No footnotes, no parentheses, no repeats, doesn't minimize Trump's victory, gives an honest account of the lack of plurality without using that technical word, and the prose is short and fluid. The "fifth president" factoid is well-covered in the linked article, doesn't add much value here. — JFG 02:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support current version – After a few weeks of pause, re-reading every version and every comment, I reckon the current version in the lead is the most neutral, while being grammatically clear and concise enough. — JFG 10:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support current version - I think the current version is best. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #1 - #2's "plurality" kills it for me; it wastes words stating the obvious (Trump won a majority of Electoral College votes); and other significant problems.
  #3 fails to provide historical context (fifth) for the popular vote outcome; I concur with MelanieN's comments re "ballots"; and I think "U.S." can be reasonably inferred by the reader.
  Strongly oppose substituting "popular support" for "popular vote", per MelanieN. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #2, the only option that does not attempt to obfuscate the most important facts about the election: Trump lost the plurality of the vote and only won as a result of the USA’s antiquated and anti-democratic Electoral College created to sustain the USA's former anti-democratic and racist slavery system. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  You win the prize for the most blatantly POV argument to date in this RfC. He who does not recognize his own bias sees bias in neutrality. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  The most significant indicator of neutrality on Misplaced Pages is to receive personal attacks from POV-pusher Mandruss, nothing drives him crazy like hearing the truth told from a neutral point of view. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  Wrong accusation, Gouncbeatduke, please quit the aspersions. In my experience, Mandruss edits in a very balanced way and is always courteous. Your rant about the electoral college voting system being somehow linked to slavery is totally irrelevant. — JFG 23:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  Like Grayson Allen, you be trip'n. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #3 clear and concise, neutrally worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 - Provides all details from a neutral point of view. Meatsgains (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3. Providing both that he received fewer votes than Clinton, and that he received historically few votes, seems like overkill for the lead section. I also think "plurality" is slightly inaccessible. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #2. The only wording that is encyclopedic and neutral. Especially #3 clearly falsifies information, and is worded in a way that just confuses readers about the word "majority". --Tataral (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Umm, what information is falsified in #3? --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What info do you feel to be falsified in #3?I would not mind a bit of explanation!Light 08:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #3 - Best of the options, describing the events from a neutral point of view and just the format suited for lead. Strongest oppose to #2.Light 08:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #3. Suggest: revise "Trump garnered fewer ballots than Clinton" to "Trump got fewer votes than Clinton" for simpler wording.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3. Also support simplifying "garnered fewer ballots" per CuriousMind01 above. 'Ballots' is ambiguous meaning either an entire voting session (we'll hold a ballot) or (I presume meaning here) individual votes. Pincrete (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #2 Seems to be the most comprehensive explanation; #3 would leave readers without a detailed knowledge of the electoral system wondering how Trump won. Number 57 17:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose all options that mention a nonexistent "national popular vote". There was no national popular vote; only 50 state popular votes. You can't simply add up the state popular votes to find out what a national popular vote would have been if that were the system used, because in that case voter turnout would probably have been lower in swing states and higher in other states. That's because in the current system, voters have less incentive to vote in "safe states" and more incentive to vote in "battleground" states, and this affects turnout. Campaign strategy also would have been significantly affected. We cannot deduce or reasonably estimate what the result of a "national popular vote" would have been, based purely on the state popular votes. jej1997 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose all options. The status quo is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 Seems the most clear and neutral. PackMecEng (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Clear and neutral? How is that even possible with incoherent sentences like Neither candidate earned a majority of the popular vote, and Trump garnered fewer ballots nationwide? Seriously? It does not convey any of the facts with any understanding. It muddies the water. It's the absolute worst possible choice. It reads like someone filling up their blue book with BS hoping the excess word count will "garner them points" with the professor. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #3, but change "Trump garnered fewer ballots than Clinton" to "Trump got fewer votes than Clinton" per CuriousMind01. Yoshiman6464 05:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 in the interest of bringing this to an end with enough of a lopsided vote to avoid a reopening. Objective3000 (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This "lopsided vote" appears to be the result of off-wiki canvassing. How many of these editors have a bot notice on their talk page? How many have a history of editing here? I find it highly unusual that an edit like this is drawing so much attention. They vote and then mention that the sentence, which is illiterate, must be changed. This is fake. We are not putting this idiot sentence into this article. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Don't get paranoid: many people watch this talk page, and all RfCs tend to attract a lot of participants, without any canvassing involved. You decided to open this particular RfC, so why not just let it run its course now? — JFG 19:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: It is not paranoia to state the obvious. You had multiple opportunities to present a well-crafted sentence that included the key facts but you did not because you refused to allow any mention of Hillary Clinton in the same sentence..SW3 5DL (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Now I have no idea what you are talking about: there is nothing "obvious" about canvassing here. Hillary Clinton is mentioned and I did my best to incorporate as many suggestions from as many people as I could, yours included. This process culminated in the "C5" variant which I then placed into the RfC as option 3. The rest is being decided by !voters. — JFG 20:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It's being decided by canvassing. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Bot notices are not the only way to become aware of an RfC like this. As JFG said, many editors watch this page; it currently has 1,634 watchers. And the RfC is listed in three categories, also high visibility. Your canvassing reasoning is highly flawed, and it never adds strength to an argument to repeat it over and over. Please refrain from making accusations like that without far stronger evidence. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It is obvious. It's an idiotic sentence that even it's supporters are saying needs to be changed. They were canvassed. Plain and simple and this RfC will not close properly because it's littered with canvassing. And you're right bot notices are not the only way. Email apparently works better. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #3 Provides WP:NPOV. However, we should also consider adding one sentence concerning possible Russian interference in the election as this is historically significant.Casprings (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

We could mention all that, but then we'd need to mention Hillary's and the DNC's emails as the source of the interference, and the FBI debacle. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. If #2 then change "a plurality of the nationwide vote" to "more votes nationwide". Plurality probably isn't a well known term. If #3 then change "garnered fewer ballots" to "received fewer votes". Garnering ballots is unnecessary linguistic flourish. Aside from those tweaks, the three versions are similar and similarly acceptable. Alsee (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - status quo option preferred. These all seem pretty close, so not really seeing much of a choice or mention of whats up -- it just seems to presume it's down to A/B ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 as most NPOV and best written — Iadmc♫ 18:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose all The phrasing in the current lead is perfect. These other options are either too verbose about Clinton's popular vote win or have very confusing wording. "Neither candidate received a majority of the national popular vote"? This doesn't make sense - this could only happen if they received an identical number of votes. I understand some people don't understand how the Electoral College works, but we don't have to explain it in uber detail for that very small minority.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"Neither candidate received a majority" makes perfect sense. Neither candidate got a "majority", i.e. over 50% of the votes, because there were third-party candidates in the race who also got a share of the popular vote. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose all options, current text is better. I also disagree with the "surprise" bit for reasons already stated by other users in the discussion below.Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 This is the most concise and gives the reader the most important information. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #2 or Oppose First off, it wasn't surprising. Remember, the US is divided into TIME ZONES. All the swing states are in the Eastern Time Zone (UTC-5), so they finish voting first. Byt the time all the in-queue voters have finished, it is 7pm Central, and all those polls are closing. So by 9CDT, everyone knew that Trump would win, as the West coast going to Ms. Hillary was a given, and Mountain Time doesn't have the population to make up the divide in the Electoral College. Second, #2 is the best because 1 and 3's assertion "Neither candidate earned a majority of the popular vote" is patently absurd. Hillary won the popular by a few million. Everybody I know knew it would be close in the popular vote. It is the first 2 sentences that are off to me, and that is why i cast #2 or Oppose. L3X1 Complaints Desk 13:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  @L3X1: That's not patently absurd, it's patently true. Neither candidate took 50% of the popular vote plus 1, which is the definition of "majority". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  Mandruss Whoops! I was thinking "majority" along the lines of, "having more than the other fellow." Still an awkward wording. L3X1 Complaints Desk 17:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose all options - leave the lead as is considering it is neutrally stated and properly weighted. The details belong in the body but if it is decided more must be added, we shouldn't omit facts that maintain NPOV & weight. Suggestion: In the November 8, 2016, general election, Donald Trump won more Electoral College votes than Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The Electoral College mismatch was the result of Clinton winning more of the popular vote in the highly populated metropolitan areas of California, Illinois and New York, whereas Trump campaigned specifically for Electoral College votes and won several larger states, such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. At age 70, he is the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with fewer popular votes. per Pew Research 15:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2 as the most neutral version, stating the difference between popular and electoral votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1 since it is the most neutral. Anyone wishing to dwell on the fact that Hillary won the popular vote can read the main body of the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion: Election summary in the lede

Opening an RfC at this stage in the consensus-building process underway above does not look helpful, as it throws us into 30 days of further discussion and reduces editor choice to two variants. I believe this should be shut down by the nominator. — JFG 23:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC in the middle of discussion is not helpful and should be shut down - preferably withdrawn by the proposer. I also think the two choices offered are not representative of the actual discussion. That is likely to wind up with a proliferation of other suggestions and the RfC will dissolve in chaos. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not in the middle of a discussion. It's going nowhere. On something like this, fresh eyes by other editors can only help. This is currently being discussed by only a small number of editors who can't seem to reach consensus. Hence, an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually I think we were on the verge of achieving consensus for your version #1, which is the product of input by multiple people. We may find out by the responses to this RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Just be be extra-clear, I support #1 even if the last instance of "of the national popular vote" is not changed to "popular support". Melanie prefers not to change it, whereas JFG disliked saying "national popular vote" twice in this paragraph even though it's legally irrelevant and sounds kind of redundant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

And I support #1 even if the wording change proposed by Anything is chosen. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I've tweaked my suggestion so it would change "the fifth president who received less of the national popular vote than his opponent" to "the fifth president elected with less popular support than his opponent". Hopefully, that will attract popular and/or electoral support from both User:JFG and User:MelanieN?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think this "fifth" (or "fourth") factoid needs to be included: the relevant historical details are in the linked article. — JFG 02:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, your C2 and C3 already mention that he got less of the popular vote, so your only objection seems to be the words "the fifth president who". I don't care one way or the other, and don't think that's a big issue is it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct, we were very close to consensus indeed. Taking into account your latest remarks, I have now offered version C5 as option #3 in this RfC. Here's hoping we can converge on that one. — JFG 02:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Not holding my breath. 😁 If this RFC gets no consensus, then the current version remains, which seems okay except for some people's dislike of the word "plurality".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• WP:MOS note: In all three of these proposals, if they go into the article, "Donald Trump" should be changed to "Trump" and "Hillary Clinton" should be changed to "Clinton". --MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  As of now, the Clinton reference would be the first in the article, so I think "Hillary" stays. But "Donald" does need to go per WP:SURNAME. I think it should simply be changed in place here without ugly strikethrough; the changes are unlikely to affect existing !votes or discussion. I'll boldly make those changes. Also adding commas after two 2016s, same rationale. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment re #3. It has some issues. If this is the option getting consensus, well, it needs editing. (Issues: "victory" seems redundant to "won" ; "earned" is ambiguous ; "garnered" ; "U.S. president" ) p.s. I know neither time nor appetite to resolve these before implementation. Fine. But neither do I want to be accused of violating consensus if/when I attempt to copyedit these issues out of the implemented result. Ok, IHTS (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Final (?) tweaks

The discussion has been open for 5 days. I do think we should keep it open for at least a week, as kind of a minimum opportunity for all interested parties to contribute. But in the meantime, #3 is strongly in the lead (10 !votes for #3, 3 for #2, 1 for #1, 1 for "current version). Several people have suggested tweaks in the wording of #3. Can we work those out here, so that #3 is ready to go into the article when this is closed? This should involve only tweaks to the wording of proposal #3, not additions or removals or anything that changes the meaning. If you want substantive changes, do not propose them here. I'll copy #3 here. If you have a specific proposal, please put it below, as "change AAAA to BBBB". JFG, you have been really good at incorporating discussion into actual versions; do you want to give it one more go?

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Neither candidate earned a majority of the popular vote, and Trump garnered fewer ballots than Clinton nationwide. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service.

It needs to stay open longer. The bot only delivered the notice to talk pages yesterday, Jan 12. There's always a delay with the bot and the whole point of the RfC is to get comment from the wider community. And #3 seems to have curiously similar comments. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know that. There certainly does need to be time for people to respond. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

For me, the "in a surprise victory" part shouldn't be included per WP:NPOV. The rest is fine. Linguist Moi. 20:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a substantive change, not a wording tweak. Actually all three versions proposed in this RfC say "surprise"; I think that was as a result of earlier discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

My only tweak is that I don't care for "garnered fewer ballots". Can we re-word this? --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Some people may have been surprised, others may not have been. It's a clear-cut POV. Linguist Moi. 20:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Clinton was the clear overall favorite. IIRC, NYT's complex mathematical model gave her an 83% chance on the morning of Election Day. Whether individuals were surprised is not the point, and that is not what the phrase conveys here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't it be RS'd that most (people & pundits) were surprised!? IHTS (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd argue that a more common wording in the sources is that Trump's victory was an upset, using the sports metaphor. Most political races are handicapped (in the Vegas sense although betting on potus-outcome is only legal in foreign countries), just like championship sporting events, and when the person expected (by pundits) to be the underdog, ends up winning the most points (or electoral college votes), then the situation is called an upset, or redundantly, a surprise upset. The metaphor is appropriate, because none of the pundits predicted 100% probability of Clinton victory, but many of them predicted between 3:1 and 50:1 chances of a Clinton victory, which are pretty long odds from a betting standpoint. I would say we could nix the 'surprise' verbiage and rewrite to say 'upset' instead, with a wikilink thereto. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now ("surprise upset" = redundant; ). Good eye. --IHTS (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"Upset" is good, and the wikilink is helpful because it describes exactly this situation. "Surprise" or "upset" is not POV; it is what virtually all sources said the next day (many added something like "stunning" for even more emphasis). This was because the pre-election polling had been so strongly in favor of Clinton. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

My ce suggestions:

• "victory against" → "upset over". (To elim possible redundancy "Trump won in a victory".)
  • "a surprise victory against" → "an upset over". (Borrowed from above.) --IHTS (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• "earned" → "received". (Because both were largely disliked, "earned" could be misinterpreted.)
• "and Trump garnered fewer ballots" → "with Trump receiving fewer votes". (The point is to contrast the candidates' various vote totals, which is highlighted better if the language stays consistent, rather than intentionally varying for "style".)
• "U.S. president" → "president". ("U.S." is implied by "the presidency" which occurs earlier.) Or "U.S. president" could possibly even be omitted. ("U.S. president" is possibly implied by "person to assume the presidency" which occurs earlier.)

IHTS (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

These are all excellent suggestions, support. Though I would possibly prefer 'upset victory' rather than 'upset over' depending on if we can eliminate the later use of victory? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean "Trump won in an upset victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton."? (But isn't "won in a victory" still somewhat redundant?) --IHTS (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

These are all good suggestions and I support them. We might consider inserting "total" for greater clarity: "and Trump received fewer total votes than Clinton nationwide" or "with Trump receiving fewer total votes than Clinton nationwide." However I don't insist on this and it may not be necessary. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

But aren't "total" and "nationwide" somewhat redundant? (What is diff between "fewer total votes nationwide" and "fewer votes nationwide"?) --IHTS (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Seems superfluous. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

^^^^"Nationwide" is a bit misleading. If you eliminate California's votes, HRC did not win the popular vote, much less national. 18:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Falsity implies anything (Principle of explosion). You cannot eliminate California. Therefore, the statement is meaningless. Objective3000 (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is trending support for #3 but the process needs to run its course. Perhaps not the full 30 days if consensus is clear, but at least a week. And yes, there are some reasonable change suggestions floating around, but it would be bad form to incorporate them before the RfC is closed. Given the extreme sensitivity of editors on any minute detail, any further change should be discussed after one of the three versions on the table is adopted. — JFG 08:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why there is 'trending support' for #3. It is not clear and concise. It does not effectively convey information at all. It muddies the water. These are the indisputable facts: Donald Trump won a surprise victory. He won the Electoral College vote. Hillary won the popular vote. Trump is only the 5th president elected who did not win the popular vote. He did not have prior military or governmental service before his win. Words like "garnered more votes," sounds like marbles in the mouth. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why either; it just happened to be the most favoured option among those presented, at the time MelanieN and I commented. Might take a while to get consensus, and further discussion may still be required. — JFG 21:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You "don't know why" because you prefer a different choice. (In fact, you prefer the choice you wrote.) Consensus rules here. Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous and virtually never is. We don't have consensus yet, because this hasn't been open long enough. But we do have a trend. At this point the trend is: one !vote for #1; four for #2; fourteen for #3; one for "none of the above: and two for "current version" (meaning what is in the article now). --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's actually not my choice. I crafted that with bits from others. I would never say "nationwide vote,", etc. And I don't like 'plurality' but it's in the RS. But JFG's choice is incoherent. All the facts should be listed especially as to who won what. Otherwise, we are going to have reverts from every random driving by. It needs to be a solid edit. If everybody would get off their sacred opinion and work towards a consensus, we would not have needed an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And I don't like 'plurality' but it's in the RS. - We have to conform to sources as to facts, not vocabulary. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up to close: What now?

Thanks to DarjeelingTea for this close. I find no fault with it although it didn't go my way. But it found no consensus, ending with: "...closure with no consensus seems to preference that the status quo - as it existed when the RfC was opened - should probably be maintained pending a more decisive outcome in a future discussion...Whether or not that is, indeed, what occurs, can be separately decided by the community." Barring another RfC, it appears "the community" means the participants on this talk page. Before this can be put to bed, we must now choose between the status quo ante and the status quo.

As I see it, this should be a purely procedural matter at this point. If we made it about our content preferences, another RfC would be required, no? So I for one am not even going to read the content choices before !voting, although I am copying them below.

1- status quo ante, the content as it existed when the RfC started:

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fourth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.

2- status quo, the content as it stands today:

Trump won the presidential election on November 8, 2016, against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, and assumed office on January 20, 2017. Elected at age 70, he is the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.

• 1 - In my view, the content should have been frozen while the RfC was in progress. If that had happened the no-consensus would mean that the status quo ante would remain in place. Therefore I support a revert to that content, although "fourth" should be changed to "fifth" if the latter is factually correct. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Mandruss, the issue there is Tilden v. Hayes. Hayes won with less of the popular vote than Tilden, and Tilden received a majority rather than a plurality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I might be mistaken but wouldn't receiving "less than a plurality" ipso facto mean you had also received "less than a majority"? DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it would be correct to say that Hayes won less than a plurality, because that would imply someone else did receive a plurality. In reality no one during that election received a plurality of the popular vote, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strike this paragraph altogether pending fresh discussion 2 modified with "since 1824" in some way to note uncertainty of some vote totals - "he is the oldest" is preferable to "he will become the oldest" (though I'm not certain the RfC closure necessarily 'commands' a reversion, particularly to the point of disallowing minor edits in tense of this type; hopefully my closure was only taken as a suggestion). Also, for reasons of inter-article consistency, I would support appending #2 with the phrase "since 1824" (or some variation thereof) as our own article United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote makes clear there was not a popular vote to calculate during the first eight elections. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

According to United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote, the pre-1825 elections are not the only further elections where the popular vote winner may have lost: "political journalists John Fund and Sean Trende have argued that Nixon actually won the popular vote" in 1960. So, instead of mentioning 1824, it might be better to just use the word "known".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Instead of appending it at all in the body, maybe we could add a note that said something like "Popular votes were not calculated prior to the 1824 election and some have questioned whether John Kennedy, in fact, won the popular vote in the 1960 election as generally believed".? DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This lead currently has no notes or footnotes, which is fine. But once we start, there will be pressure to keep inserting more. Generally, leads are either fully annotated or not annotated at all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. Both versions are now undesirable for several reasons. The first version dates itself with "will become" and both versions have an odd sentence structure which makes it seem his wealth is dependent upon his age. It's ludicrous for us to even discuss using versions that are now obviously outdated or confusing. I suggest a new version:

Despite not receiving a plurality of the national popular vote, Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Assuming the office on January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest to have done so, and the first without prior military or governmental service.

I don't think the fourth versus fifth thing is all that important, and the use of "despite" implies the situation is fairly rare. Nor do I think it is necessary to explicitly state Trump's age, when "wealthiest" is sufficient to make the point. And we don't want "is the oldest" either, because articles are meant to be written in the past tense from the historical perspective. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

For the reasons noted by Scjessey, that neither version is really ideal, I now support striking this entire paragraph altogether as a stop-gap. The content is preserved in the body, it's trivia that is not absolutely critical in the short-term, and striking the paragraph entirely would allow a fresh-start that allowed better constructed options to be presented considering there has now been a tense change (the last RfC unfortunately overlapped the inauguration and a new discussion would not face this issue). DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There wasn't any support during the RFC for striking the whole thing, and I wouldn't support that. I'm going to do what your RFC close said, and then do a few quick tweaks that should be unobjectionable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

So nobody has an opinion on the text I offered up? Surely it fixes all the problems, does it not? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and followed the instructions in the RFC close, and then did a couple minor tweaks. I am glad to consider proposed changes to the lead as it stands now, but maybe start a new section?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Your changes don't address the other problems I laid out above. And "at least" is just awful, because it makes us seem incompetent. Frankly, I think it was wrong for you to make any changes without first discussing those proposed changes with others, and without commenting on my own proposal above. There's even a comment in the article saying not to change anything without consensus, which you did not have. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. I said here at the talk page that I would edit per the RFC close. I was told "sounds good". Then I edited precisely according to the RFC close. If you want to disagree with my subsequent edits, then fine. Additionally, I don't like the way your proposed version opens up the possibility that Trump was the first ever to become president with less of the popular vote than his opponent, and your insertion of the word "despite" seems unnecessary to me. As to the words "at least", political scientists (like all other kinds of scientists) use them all the time without sounding incompetent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your subsequent edits. They are inadequate and lack consensus. My proposed version does not upon up the possibility of Trump being the "first ever" president without a plurality, unless perhaps you misread it. The word "despite" removes the need for all this fourth/fifth/at least crap and implies it is unusual, which it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I made three edits. You reverted the last two. Your revert of my second edit is very difficult for me to describe without causing offense. You actually believe there is no consensus to refer to his ascension to the presidency in the past tense? My, my.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not revert the first edit because it concerned the wrapping up of the RfC. The other two edits, whether or not they were right or wrong, did not have any prior discussion on this talk page and were thus in violation of the unwritten agreement we have concerning this contentious paragraph. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I meant "sounds good" only as a non-objecting acknowledgment of your statement, not as a grant of authorization (that I don't have the authority to give anyway). The RfC was closed as no consensus and I suggested the status quo ante might be preferable until a final decision could be made, but being there is no consensus, that is not the close decision (which is, as stated, no consensus). In absence of a consensus, I imagine anyone can edit it anyway they want, in either recognition or rejection of my suggestion, subject only to the normal 1RR restrictions on this page. In any case, I wish you all the best of luck. This page isn't on my watch list and I may not check it again so please ping me if anyone needs anything further from me. DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And to clarify my intent in opening this subsection, it was to put the RfC to bed, not to establish anything like a final version of the content. From a procedural standpoint it makes a lot of sense to close out one issue before starting another, and a consensus for 1 (or 2) would not by any means have precluded improvements on it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we reached the predicted lack of outcome (see #Discussion: Election summary in the lede). Oh well, at least we all had fun discussing! — JFG 20:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

ISIS or ISIL

The last paragraph of the lead section originally mentioned Trump's intent to move aggressively against ISIS. Some editors have replaced this with Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and I reverted per WP:NOTBROKEN, however it was changed again and I left it alone for a while. Today I switched it back to ISIS but I was reverted by Donottroll (talk · contribs). Abiding by WP:DS and WP:1RR, I'm taking this to the talk page in order to obtain consensus on the wording to use for this terrorist group. I contend that we should spell is the way Trump has always described it ever since he started his electoral campagin, i.e. as ISIS. There are literally thousands of sources corroborating this variant. Some may argue this is not the official name of the organization, however they are known for using many names, various governments and press agencies call them IS, ISIL, ISIS or Daesh, and WP:OFFICIAL says that what they call themselves does not automatically determine what we call them. And if we're going the official route, note that even the recent presidential memorandum is called Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, not Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. As Trump calls them ISIS and we are on Trump's bio, we must call them ISIS here. — JFG 07:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted per WP:NOTBROKEN - Side note: NOTBROKEN advises against ], saying that bypassing the redirect is unnecessary and often undesirable, so we should use ] instead of that piped link. NOTBROKEN applies only to piped links where the left part is the article title and the right part matches a redirect to the article. Thus a change from ] to ] does not violate NOTBROKEN, and a revert of that change cannot be per NOTBROKEN. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion Trump does not dictate the vocabulary in this article, and we should use the acronym that a majority of our sources use, after using the full name on first reference. Not that that's an easy question or anything. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The United States Department of State formally refers to the organization as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", with related organizations ISIL Sinai Province, ISIL-Khorasan (ISIL-K), and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's Branch in Libya (ISIL-Libya). With that in mind, I am of the opinion we should use "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)" in the first instance and "ISIL" thereafter, except when we are quoting Trump's actual words. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal as a general rule although I could see possible exceptions which would need to be made on a case-by-case basis. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It's ISIS. Only Obama called it ISIL. This isn't Obama's article. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: "Only Obama called it ISIL" is total bullshit. "ISIS" is only really used in the United States, and only by the press and politicians. The CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the Department of State and virtually everyone outside of the USA say "ISIL". We may end up using "ISIS" because US reliable sources are lazy and get it wrong, but it has nothing to do with Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Google search returns 235,000,000 for ISIS. 17,000,000 for ISIL. Trump has said repeatedly we will defeat ISIS. He never calls it anything else. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump's policy on his website calls it ISIS: . Use of the term ISIL, adding in the Levant, is a slap in the face to Israel because it lumps Israel in with the area of Palestine and implies Israel is not a sovereign nation. That is why Obama called it ISIL. But even the media calls it ISIS. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Background note from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Current name: — JFG 08:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

In April 2013, having expanded into Syria, the group adopted the name ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām (Template:Rtl-lang). As al-Shām is a region often compared with the Levant or Greater Syria, the group's name has been variously translated as "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" (both abbreviated as ISIS), or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (abbreviated as ISIL).

References

1. Irshaid, Faisal (2 December 2015). "Isis, Isil, IS or Daesh? One group, many names". BBC. Retrieved 2 December 2015.
2. "AlQaeda in Iraq confirms Syria's Nusra Front is part of its network". Al Arabiya English. 9 April 2013. Retrieved 15 June 2014.
3. Tharoor, Ishaan (18 June 2014). "ISIS or ISIL? The debate over what to call Iraq's terror group". The Washington Post. Retrieved 21 June 2014.

Personally, I would say that considering most of the article uses "ISIS" as it is now, we should keep it that way, per WP:NOTBROKEN. It's a valid name for the group and consistency should be maintained as much as possible throughout this article. HelgaStick (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The lede should just say ISIS. There was never any reason to change it. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@HelgaStick: NOTBROKEN has nothing to do with the visible text, see small side note above (or just read NOTBROKEN). ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"ISIL" is the standard reference accepted across Misplaced Pages. The U.S. is the only place where the group is regularly referred to as "ISIS". Note that wikilinking ISIS redirects to an article entitled "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Vrrajkum (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I support putting both in the lead. One or both can be put in parentheses. Readers who are unfamiliar with only one of these acronyms will be assisted by seeing the other. We're only talking about a few extra letters.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not aware of a rule imposing consistency about the naming of this entity across Misplaced Pages. The fact they are named differently in different places and by different people enjoins us to consider the context to make an appropriate decision. In the context of this article, Donald Trump has always called them ISIS, all the journalistic sources we quote call them ISIS, and official documents emanating from the new US administration also call them ISIS. I see no reason to use ISIL at all. Readers who need to be educated will follow the link. — JFG 19:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

My position: none, except to say that this is going to need a clear consensus fit for The List, even if that means RfC. We can expect a steady stream of editors wishing to change this to their preference, at least as long as Trump is in office. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Media About Trump Bias/Overrepresented View Points

Reading the media section about Mr. Trump one can see how it is very bias. Especially after the video of him using very vulgar language and discriminating woman, which should be included when talking about our current president in the media section under his name. It is very important to include both sides in an article to fully inform readersCesar Pulido (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Cesar Pulido

This articles viewpoints are very overrepresented because the whole article is bias. Throughout the whole article all that is shared is the good accomplishments made by Donald Trump. When it shares nothing about racists remarks, discrimination towards woman, and lack of respect towards some people.Cesar Pulido (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Cesar Pulido

Cesar Pulido - ? If you mean the tape, that is kind of WP:OFFTOPIC for his bio. That was pretty much a 7-day wonder 'October surprise' in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and has it's own Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording but this is supposed to be his biography of significant parts of his life and so here just has a mention pointing to the article. Markbassett (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe some contributors may be biased as Mr. Trump is...not a great president. LyricsThatSing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Bad revert

I strongly object to the revert of this edit of mine. It is nuts to refer in the lead to Trump's ascension to the presidency in the future tense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it. El_C 20:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't have done that. The paragraph is under discussion in a previous section, and no edits should be made to it until there is an agreement. Anythingyouwant has sneakily done this in a new section, which is highly inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It was 100% appropriate for El_C to fix it. We would look like fools if we refer in the lead to Trump's ascension to the presidency in future tense. As for me being sneaky, no way. The RFC is over and we needed to move on. I already said above in the RFC section: " I am glad to consider proposed changes to the lead as it stands now, but maybe start a new section?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)". Please see WP:NPA.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's not be petty here. It's clearly past tense now. It's simply absurd to refer to him as becoming when that clearly has already happened. My change of it into became is WP:SENSE of the first order. El_C 19:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Third paragraph

I propose we change the third paragraph from this:

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.

to this:

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, despite receiving fewer votes. Assuming the office on January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest to have done so, and the first without prior military or governmental service.

By using the word "despite", we can get around the complicated issue of whether or not it has been the fourth of fifth time a president doesn't have the plurality of the vote (there's been something of an edit war over this). The specifics of plurality/majority are best covered in the body of the article. By changing the sentence structure to remove the age, we can also get around the problem of it sounding like being the wealthiest president is dependent on his age - there's no need to actually mention the age anyway, since this is covered by the blue link. -- Scjessey (talk)

• Oppose. We just got through a long RFC resulting in no consensus, so trying again so soon to overhaul this whole thing seems like a definite non-starter. I oppose it, strongly. Also, the word "despite" is inapt here, as if we were saying Trump was not prevented from becoming president by his loss of the popular vote. There's no reason to hint that he should have been prevented. And there is only one national popular vote, not millions. Regarding "fourth" or "fifth", I suggest "one of several presidents", which would take care of that matter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The existing language is crappy, so of course we should look at revising it as soon as possible. It is your right to oppose it, even if your reasons are out of whack. It is unusual for the loser of the popular vote to win the election, so "despite" is totally appropriate and in no way suggests anything untoward - that's just in your imagination. Your reference to "millions" of national popular votes is really just a problem you seem to have with reading comprehension; nevertheless, I have simplified it for you. I'm suggesting this version in the hopes it will spark debate in a new direction that will allow us to move forward. You've had your opinion twice now (you commented on a similar proposal in the earlier thread) and so I would prefer to hear from other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and I would prefer if you would not be unresponsive. As I said in my last comment, regarding "fourth" or "fifth", I suggest "one of several presidents", which would take care of that matter. I strongly object to opening up in the lead the possibility that he's the first president who ever got fewer votes. Regarding the word "despite", it's obviously not in my imagination that it means "without being prevented."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

"Several" suggests it is more common than this rare event is. I would think that was fairly obvious. And that is also why "despite" works. I don't know where you get the idea it means he's the first president to get fewer votes. There's no way to draw that conclusion from my proposed text. Anyway, I'd like input from other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I see, you think five is less than several. I disagree with you about that. The word "several" is defined as "more than two but not many." You're obviously mistaken, or being deliberately wrong. And removing from the lead that other presidents have been in the same pickle obviously will leave readers of the lead with the impression that he may be the only one who's ever been in this pickle. I don't think there's any point trying to reason with you, and you certainly don't seem receptive to anything I say. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the word "despite", which seems to detract from the fact that he won the presidency. Such a change would feed into the Trump supporters' objection that calling attention to the popular vote differential is an attempt to delegitimize his victory. If we are to be neutral and consensual I think we need to keep that information totally factual and neutral, with no attempt to judge or characterize it in any way. I do like saying the "fifth" such president, and "fifth" did have consensus last time I looked (there is really no reason for people to omit the 1824 election). Basically I would like to leave this paragraph as it is - already the product of some very long and involved discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Although Sjessey presents some good points, I am going to agree with MelanieN on this one, in that we should keep the lead as it is, because previous discussions have already established this is the agreed upon lead, and it is too soon to change it. I recommend revisiting this in nine months to a year, if it is still an issue. Also, I don't have a problem with the word "despite" if we were to change the lead at this time. But let's not get into changing the lead at this time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I would also limit any immediate changes to fixing the tense in the paragraph. Prior to the RfC we spent a lot of collective energy trying to reach a consensus, then one of the participants decided to put this to a wider polling, and the local-consensus version(s) were not approved. Now the RfC outcome should be upheld, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. — JFG 20:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Are you suggesting that we should convert the RfC no-consensus to a consensus for the status quo based on agreement between a majority of a few editors in this thread? Adding an entry to the consensuses list? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I was pondering this very question. Given the inability of the community to reach a consensus for rephrasing after months of debate and wide participation, I would tend to say that current version does represent a consensus by default. There are no lingering strong objections to this wording, whereas all suggestions to rephrase have been met with some kind of strong objection, and efforts at synthesis have been rejected as well. Just for the sake of avoiding circular debates again, I believe this state of affairs should be mentioned in the consensus list. However I'm not sure how to express it clearly to a newcomer… — JFG 21:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess you would say something like, "This is a consensus by default, see following link", said link pointing to this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done, with some explanation. — JFG 08:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What about the problem with the "At age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest" construct? It makes it sound like his wealth has something to do with his age. And for the record, "despite" is supported by many reliable sources, and has nothing to do with "delegitimizing" anyone. example, example, example. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, "what about" the fact that "plurality" is not a widely-understood word? And "what about" the problematic grammar, strictly speaking, of the second sentence, which is effectively "At age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote."? Clearly, the second part of that list is nonsensical when read closely.
I think the point is that everybody will continue to have their pet "what abouts", with no resolution in sight. I'm willing to let mine go for the time being, and say that we did the best that we could and that the status quo is not unacceptable. Are you? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I am.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: That's an absurd position. You and I have identified glaring problems with the current text (in fact, we seem to agree on everything on this issue). It makes no sense at all to let them go and just let it remain crappy and confusing. So no, as it stands I will continue to work on this paragraph to improve it. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I see where you're coming from but I agree with other colleagues that it's time to let it go. I have my pet peeves on the current text too, and the fact is we have not achieved to find an elegant wording addressing every editor's objections despite (hah!) months of good-faith debate. The only wise option is to drop it and perhaps revisit the issue after six to nine months. — JFG 22:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Even the start of the section is rubbish biased reporting, as in ... - in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. - ... many of my friends and contacts and independent reporting outlets were of the opinion the Clinton was a very weak candidate and had run a very weak campaign and had no chance. Propaganda outlets in democratic support propounded she was winning when she was losing, it is not difficult to understand and report the actual truth when you filter out the biased verifiable reliable sources as wikipedia is sadly focused on without any editorial understanding or investigation, as in, report the fake news it's in fake news links. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  OMG "propaganda outlets" for goodness sake. Let's keep this civil and neutral, shall we? Of course it was a "surprise victory". Clinton had a big lead in the polls, and Trump only won because of a handful of votes in key states. It's fully supported by reliable sources and... well... events that actually happened! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Reporting the bias in outlets like wikipedia here was an additional reason for Trumps victory - you should try to report and consider WP:NPOV and use higher quality sources that report neutrally not sources that report the wikipedia liberal bias. In your own way here the biased reporting aided Trumps victory.Govindaharihari (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I feel that both of you are right: yes Hillary Clinton was a weak candidate, and yet Trump's victory was a surprise. The balance of coverage leading to and until the very last hours of Election Day makes these assertions abundantly clear. The text is fine, shouldn't delve into much detail: this is Trump's bio, not the election page. — JFG 22:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Saying that Harry Truman had a surprise victory over Dewey is a compliment to Truman, and helps make him legendary. It's no insult. People love underdogs who win, just look at the New England patriots. Journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann and former candidate advisor Mark McKinnon have released the new Showtime documentary Trumped: Inside The Greatest Political Upset of All Time which they executive produced and premiered at Sundance. They're right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Not saying Trumps victory wasn't a surprise for many, just that if you actually reported neutral sources it was clear that Clinton was a weak candidate and had run a very weak campaign - basically she and her financial backers had believed the fake news. ... and you are still reporting the bias here in this article and this section you are discussing, tch Govindaharihari (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of what you and your friends thought, the overwhelming prediction (based on virtually all national polling) was that Hillary would win. The morning after the election, most news outlets used a word like "stunning" to describe Trump's victory. That's why we have "surprise" in the lede. And that is not an insult; it is a compliment. Everybody loves a come-from-behind winner. --MelanieN (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN thanks for you comment. Please be aware, I am not a Trump supporter, I am a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP supporter. Having "surprise" in the lede is neither a insult or a compliment to me. I am interested in the actual facts, to quote you, the overwhelming prediction (based on virtually all national polling) - is just a reflection of the democratic failure, worthless liberal bias propaganda that totally failed - I am a neutral that read neutral reports and it was clear to me from interpretation of those reports that Hillary was struggling - the suprise was from Democrats that were reading democrat funded press reports - Govindaharihari (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Donald Trump did not win 'despite receiving fewer votes." Donald Trump won the electoral college. Hillary did not. America is a representative republic. He won the votes that counted. Hillary won a plurality of the votes and that is the language that is used in America. This is an article about an American. Edit #2 from the RfC, which was rigged with fake votes for #3, is the choice that belongs in the article. You cannot pretend Hillary did not win a plurality of the vote. RS supports this. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: I wish you would quit your unfounded and unproductive accusations of vote-rigging in the recently-closed RfC. I see zero evidence of such behaviour, and I'm just as sad as you that no consensus was reached for any of the proposed versions (although I kind of anticipated this would happen). On substance, let's remember that we are on Trump's bio, not the election page where more subtleties of the voting process are warranted. — JFG 23:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG, The RfC failed because of your behavior, your ridiculous #3 edit which is not even literate. You did everything you could to sink that RfC including arguing with every editor who chose #2. Yes, you did that. As far as off wiki communications to get editors here to chose #3 when it was obvious, they didn't even support it, I didn't say that was you. But it was somebody here with an motive to do that. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The uninvolved closer stated: "I also examined the edit history of each participant in the discussion and, though there were some cases of SPAs !voting, assigning a lower weight to their !votes or dismissing them entirely would also have not materially impacted the ability to divine a consensus." It's past time to drop this line of discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The fake votes would not have been there in the first place and the disruptive behavior of editors attacking every editor who voted for #2 were intended, and likely did, cause a chill on the RfC for editors who arrived there legitimately. .SW3 5DL (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have a behavior grievance, take it to WP:ANI, otherwise knock it off. Such grievances cannot be resolved on article talk pages and harping on them repeatedly in article talk is disruptive. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. .. and to agree with and quote SW3 5DL - Donald Trump did not win despite receiving fewer votes - Donald Trump won the electoral college. Hillary did not. America is a representative republic. He won the votes that counted. yes, that is the simple truth there. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

See, this is what I was talking about above - when I said the word "despite" would "would feed into the Trump supporters' objection that calling attention to the popular vote differential is an attempt to delegitimize his victory." And here they are, right on cue. I say again: do point out the electoral vote outcome, but don't say "despite". It is an invitation to constant battles, and we are supposed to be looking for consensus here. --MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support It is significant that the election was close which is what the popular vote shows. The "without prior military or governmental service" is however really awkward, because the other presidents who had not held elected office had held very high public positions. It's not like they had been private soldiers or city bus drivers. TFD (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

When you say "support," that sounds like you are supporting the change from paragraph one to paragraph two - because that is the way this question was posed. Is that really what you meant? Actually both versions point out out the popular vote so that isn't really a differentiator. As for the "without prior military or government service", that phrase was carefully chosen to include all the previous presidents who had not held elective office: two had held cabinet positions and three had been high-ranking military offices. --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

N.B. Who says this is the only choice we have? We are being asked to vote on another failed paragraph. What's there now works best. It says everything the reader needs to know. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The phrasing does not say "without prior high ranking military or governmental service." Suppose Trump had spent one day of his life as an election official, which is government service. Would we not still want to differentiate his experience from those of other presidents? And I prefer the change because I think we should point out that his opponent received more votes. That's not because I question his legitimacy but because it is significant. I think it would be helpful if editors would put aside partisan concerns and just present the story the way it is presented in reliable sources. In this case, I think Trump supporters are wrong, but Clinton supporters have supported a lot of innuendo, such as the fascism slur. TFD (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Which is why it should say Hillary won a plurality of votes, despite some editors believing this is the Simple Misplaced Pages and the reader won't understand a big word, even if we link the word for these unread masses. Donald Trump won the Electoral College. That is the vote that matters; not the popular vote, because America is not a banana republic where they stuff the ballot box. It's a representative republic, that uses big words like plurality. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion

Change from this:

1.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.

To this:

2.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton At age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth elected without winning the popular vote.

This eliminates the dreaded 'plurality,' and keeps everything else, except "governmental.'. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Your intention is good, but it is not maybe true about the "majority" because many presidents didn't have a majority.

I just fixed that. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

3.

On November 8, 2016, Trump won a surprise victory in the general election against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest man to assume the presidency, the first without military or government service, and the fifth elected without winning the popular vote.

\\ Bod (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it reads better to not start off with "On November 8. . ." SW3 5DL (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Back to process

Ladies and gentlemen, the edit-warring on this paragraph must stop. We had months of consensus-building discussion on this topic, followed by a recent widely-advertised RfC which failed to reach consensus. Accordingly, the status quo ante formulation must stay in place until another discussion allows consensual changes to be applied. I have restored the prior wording according to RfC close, with minor adjustment to past tense and count of non-plurality presidents; no new changes should be applied without debate. — JFG 07:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG:, there was no 'edit warring.' One editor, Bodhi Peace, decided to take it upon himself to change the edit and disrupt the page after his edits were reverted. He was blocked for his efforts. That's not edit warring. That's one editor disrupting the article. As for the 'months of consensus building,' if we'd had that, the article would say something different right now. As for 'back to process,' there are edits above that might work. So instead of walling them off with your new section, they should be considered. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I see no problem at all suggesting new changes, however the baseline should be the pre-RfC version, that's all I enforced here. Now go ahead and argue changes from that baseline, and if you find consensus, they will go in. — JFG 20:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. "Baseline" was the word I needed at #Follow-up to close: What now?, but I couldn't quite pull it out. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikilinks

FYI, User:JFG moved the wikilinks here without changing the text. Then, I adjusted the wikilinks a bit more, again without changing the text, to assuage concerns about the vocabulary of readers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits made without consensus that were reverted

• Confused looking at what we started with at the top, Scjessey wrote the current version is:

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.

However, recently, while this discussion has been going on, it has been changed to:

Trump won the presidential election on November 8, 2016, against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, and assumed office on January 20, 2017. Elected at age 70, he is the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.

As far as I can tell, this is not the version under discussion - and was unilaterally changed by someone . This is not appropriate - and this version is not under discussion. So, please change it back. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I restored what appeared to be the earlier, stable edit that had been changed, without consensus by editor Bodhi Peace. I copied it and pasted it in place of the changes Bodhi Peace made. That's the only edit I made. I did not change anything else. If you have a problem with that, go to ANI. Only Bodhi made 'unilateral' edits. ] (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits by Bodhi Peace without consensus.

Bodhi reverted

SW3 restores in good faith what appeared to be original edit @Steve Quinn:, always look at all the edits before you make accusations. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Bodhi makes more 'unilateral' changes and gets blocked by admin: . SW3 5DL (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

First, I apologize for saying "unilateral" if that is not the case, and I will AGF that you believe that is the correct version. However, according to the edit history - Bodhi Peace was not reverted by you. Rather, you reverted Twitbookspacetube - see here . It was that editor who reverted User:Bodhi Peace, and not you - see here: . Twitbookspacetub had restored to the version that began this discussion. Then it was changed to another version by you . Not the version under discussion.

Then Coffee reverted Bodhi Peace - because this person was being disruptive. All Coffee had to go on was the version in place just before Bodhi Peace's edit. And this happens to be the version not under discussion, placed there by you. Please don't accuse me of making accusations - or saying "take it to ANI". I was trying to go by what is in the edit history and if I came across too strong I apologize. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I saw that Bodhi had made multiple edits and tried to revert him. However, there were apparently intervening edits and I could not. I went looking for the intact, original edit and thought I had found it. I then went back and saw what appeared to be two edits reverted. I simply changed it out thinking it would get all of Bodhi's edits. There was never any need for you to make that accusation. You failed to look at all the edits and then you had the nerve to single me out as if I'd done something wrong. If you were so outraged and put out that, what?, one sentence was different from the edit on this page, then why didn't YOU fix it? SW3 5DL (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I could have reverted it - and I thought of doing so. But, I didn't want to get involved in a situation, if that should arise. You are correct, I was angry about that. And that is another reason I did not revert. Maybe, trying to revert when I am angry is not the best way to edit - and it probably is not. But now I am glad we talked about it, so I could see what was happening from your point of view. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Just restore the original https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=764805326 it's not that hard. --Bod (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Bodhi. You go ahead and do that. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You know I'm not that stupid. I'm not falling for that. You have to do it and I know you're capable. --Bod (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Wishing to chime in here - SW3 5DL I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part. Bodhi Peace I doubt either one of us is going to change what is there. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be "government service" by the way. --Bod (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes it should. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not write the "current" version or anything like it. I proposed a version that Anythingyouwant felt the need to attack repeatedly, but the only actual edit I made reverted a non-consensus edit by Anythingyouwant. And I totally predicted this edit warring and arguing, by the way. It was why I insisted no edits take place without establishing a consensus in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey:, I don't think he ascribed the paragraph to you. I think he was complaining that the edit I restored did not match the one you had posted in your edit suggestion. I didn't think you'd written it. I had the impression you had simply taken what was already there and made a new suggestion. I simply attempted to restore what I thought was there before the non-consensus changes. As far as predicting the 'edit war' maybe Bodhi didn't notice your post in his haste to edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Neither candidate won a popular majority

This edit (by an editor who also tried to discuss fascism accusations in the lead) is unwise. None of it is necessary or useful. And, User:Bodhi Peace seems determined to exclude from the lead that neither Trump nor Clinton won a majority of the national popular vote, which I think is essential information that has been included for months (i.e. the lead has indicated for months that Trump won less than Clinton's plurality).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Information included now. Was not aware of the importance of pointing out Clinton did not win a majority... just trying to avoid confusing language and unneeded use of the word "plurality". --Bod (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to say that Clinton did not win a majority. If she had, we would say Trump won the election although Clinton won a majority of votes. The reality is that few government leaders in the world win electoral majorities: David Cameron (37%), Justin Trudeau (39%), Angela Merkel (42%), Malcolm Turnbull (42%). But it is rare if they do not win the greatest number of votes. TFD (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

TFD, in the United States, the norm is that someone wins a majority of the national popular vote. See United States' presidential plurality victories. Even if the norm were otherwise, mentioning that Clinton did not win a majority indicates that she did not clobber Trump, which is extremely notable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless there are strong third party candidates. It did not happen in 2000, 1996 or 1992. So the winner got a majority of votes in 3 out of the last 7 elections. Not the norm for the past 25 years. Saying that Trump did not win the most votes does not imply that Clinton "clobbered" him. TFD (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It certainly leaves open that possibility, and why leave it open in the lead?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Because the norm is that when the person with the second highest number of votes wins, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, that the loser did not clobber them in popular vote. The lead is supposed to summarize what happened not argue that Trump's election was or was not legitimate which no serious source challenges, unlike the 2000 election. TFD (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should summarize what happened. And to say that Clinton won the popular vote, without giving any clue by how much, is a very poor summary that only indicates her achievement without indicating his achievement of holding her to less than a majority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do you believe saying 'neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote' is relevant? The average reader probably knows Hillary won the popular vote, so to make this claim will confuse those readers. Doesn't saying, 'Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote,' say the same thing in a concise, not confusing way? Might it be better to say the election was close with Trump winning the electoral vote and Hillary winning a plurality of the popular vote? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

In answer to your last two questions, yes and yes. The problem is that some editors think the word "plurality" is too obscure or complicated for our readers. I think the word "plurality" is fine, and if readers don't know exactly what it means then they ought to learn. If we exclude the word "plurality" then we have to use a lot more words to expresss the same ideas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that "plurality" is a word very specific to the United States, and the English language Misplaced Pages is meant to cater to all English-speaking nations. The UK term "relative majority" means the same thing, but that isn't used by anyone else either. Perhaps this would be better:

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote. Assuming the office on January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest to have done so, and the first without prior military or governmental service.

It's wordier, but it makes it clear Trump had a fairly easy EC win and that neither nominee received a majority. I don't like the recent changes to the article that have seen this material absorbed into the first paragraph, so this is provided in the earlier consensus form. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:TIES, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Your phrasing is clearer and more accessible. See MOS:INTRO ("Avoid difficult-to-understand terminology. Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be linked and briefly defined."), and Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary ("plurality. 1. Formal. A usually large number of things <The researchers studied a plurality of approaches>. 2. Chiefly US, technical. A number of votes ...").

MOS:TIES requires only that we not use specifically British or Canadian English in an article about an American president. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The main problem I have with this proposal is that it leaves readers with the impression that Trump may be the first president who ever won the presidency while losing the popular vote. He is the fifth, as the lead currently explains. Other editors at this talk page have also indicated that we need to preserve the lead's longstanding statement that Trump is not the first in this regard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Where does Scjessey's text suggest that Trump is the first president who ever did so? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It does not suggest that he is, it suggests that he may be, by deleting the lead's current statement that he is not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I don't think it needs to be in the lede, where brevity is preferred. It is already fully explained in the body of the article and that should be sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree brevity is preferred in the lead. The material in the lead right now is briefer than your proposal, and it includes that Trump is not the first to win the votes of fewer people than his opponent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: But we must sacrifice brevity in favor of making things easily readable, and the fact remains that "plurality" is not well understood beyond the borders of the USA. Using a few extra words to spell it out is worth it, because "plurality" is borderline obfuscation. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The word is used in 5,722 Misplaced Pages articles. Google News currently has 88,200 hits for this word. We currently wikilink the word "plurality" in the lead, for anyone unfamiliar with the word. Plurality voting is typically covered in high school.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Dervorguilla, this is an article about an American president. We cannot use British or Canadian terms. And the 'relative majority' is wide of the mark anyway. As for the edit suggestion, it is not at all clear to the reader that Donald Trump decisively won the presidency with a clear majority of the EC which is the vote that counts. I still say we must use the dreaded word 'plurality' and Anythingyouwant agrees with that. It is the American standard in presidential elections because it goes hand in hand with the EC vote. I also agree with Anytthing that readers can look up the word if they don't know it. We're not here to spoon feed the reader. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: This isn't an American article. It is an English language article. It is important that we use language well understood by all English-speaking people. We aren't suggesting we use Canadian/British terms, we are simply saying we need to spell it out a little bit for the vast number of English speakers who are not Americans with a close interest in this incredibly specific political terminology. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There are many varieties of English. American English is used for articles about Americans and American subjects, especially the American president. British English is used on articles about British subjects and people. I dare you to go over to a British subject article and start removing uniquely British terms. You will not be met with open arms. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This is the edit as it stands now in the article:

1.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.

This is Scjessey's suggestion:

2.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote. Assuming the office on January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest to have done so, and the first without prior military or governmental service.

The problem with #2 is this sentence: Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote.

Clinton never had an advantage with the popular vote. Trump broke the blue wall of Democrat states. Trump is the one with advantage with the popular vote. He played Moneyball, and started heavily campaigning in the states that had previously gone Democrat, had the biggest majority of out of work formerly middle class Democrats, and also had enough EC votes to put him over Hillary, no matter what she did in the other states. He won decisively. She won popular votes in heavily populated states like California, a state that holds a super majority of Democrats. She didn't even bother to campaign in California. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This is complete bullshit. Clinton finished with an enormous, three million-vote lead in the popular vote. Ignoring that fact is ludicrous. Several "blue wall" states were decided by a tiny fraction of their total votes. You have repeatedly told this lie before on this talk page, and it needs to be called out for the mendacity it surely is. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This is my RS to support my comments. Now show us your RS to support your claim that Trump did not break the blue wall. He beat her where it counted. Like a drum.

• CNN: Trump Stomps All Over Democrats’ Blue Wall
• Forbes: How the Blue Wall Cracked
• Washington Post: Virginia for the Win: Breaking the Blue Wall
• Investors Business Daily: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely from California:
• New York Times Electoral Map:

SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow. You'll say any ridiculous pro-Trump/anti-Clinton thing you can think of. Trump only won those blue states by the skin of his teeth. Just a few thousand votes here or there (a minuscule fraction of the total) and Clinton would've beaten Trump handily. But keep on living in your alternative reality if it makes you feel better. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Why do you personalize your comments against editors with these personal attacks instead of showing RS to support your claims? I've seen you do this to other editors here. Now, I've taken the time to seek out the RS. Yet, you come back with a personal attack. I don't live in an alternative reality, unless that reality includes CNN, The Washington Post, Forbes, the New York Times, and Investors Business Daily. Where's your RS? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources at United States presidential election, 2016 that tell the truth of the matter. The "blue wall" hinged on a tiny number of votes. The election was a squeaker, even if the Electoral College votes don't reflect that. And I wasn't making a personal attack at all. I was pointing out that you are wrong about the election result, and you've continued to propagate this wrongness for weeks and weeks now. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Again you fail to supply specific sources to back your claims and again you make another personal attack claiming I "propagate this wrongness,' and have done so for 'weeks and weeks." You fail also to address the reliable sources I have supplied and instead again put in your POV about the outcome of the election. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Just chiming it to say I don't consider this version to be an improvement; quite the contrary. "Easily overcame" is POV and factually inaccurate. ("Squeaked by" would be more accurate.) Also, this version compares apples to oranges by listing the electoral college vote and the popular vote together in the same sentence as if they are comparable in significance; they are not. If you want to put something about the "Blue Wall" in the encyclopedia somewhere, I would suggest the article about the election. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I agree, 'easily overcame' is POV and factually inaccurate. Also agree with combo of electoral college and popular vote. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

2 has problematic language. I'm not sure why you prefer "nominee". The use of "easily" and even "overcame" when it's more apples to oranges between the popular vote and the Electoral College. "To have done so" is not a necessary phrase as you can see in some of the rephrasing suggested below. Bod (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I may suggest

3.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Trump won the Electoral College, but became only the fifth US president to not get more of the national popular vote than his opponents. On January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest man to assume the presidency, and the only one to have not served in military or government.

\\ Bod (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but the current version is preferable IMHO. First of all, it's not correct that Trump became only the fifth US president to not get more of the national popular vote than his opponents. For example, Bill Clinton got less of the popular vote in 1992 than Perot's and Bush's share of the popular vote. More importantly, this proposed version emphasizes Hillary Clinton's accomplishment in getting more of the popular vote, but omits Trump's very substantial accomplishment in holding her to less than a majority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

4.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither had a majority of the popular vote, but Trump won the Electoral College and became the fifth US president to not get a plurality of the national popular vote. On January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest man to assume the presidency, and the first who had not served in military or government.

Plurality seems unavoidable. \\Bod (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That's incorrect again. Many presidents did not get a plurality because they instead got a majority. The present version is much more concise and accurate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

5.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. On January 20, 2017, at age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior government or military service, and the fifth to be elected without winning the national popular vote.

\\Bod (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This emphasizes Hillary Clinton's achievement in getting more of the popular vote, but omits Trump's achievement in holding her to less than a majority. The current version implies she won a plurality rather than a majority, so I think the current version is preferable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: "...but omits Trump's achievement in holding her to less than a majority." What achievement? That's not an achievement. Third party candidates were able to prevent Trump or Clinton from getting a majority, but to suggest Trump held back Clinton's vote is absurd. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Bodhi, I agree with Anythingyouwant on all those suggestions. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #2

Bodhi, I appreciate your repeated attempts to meet people's comments by modifying your proposal. It appears we are trying to cover three points here: 1) Trump won the election, 2) Clinton got a larger share of the popular vote than he did, 3) neither of them received an actual majority of the popular vote. (Note: not "popular votes"; the term "popular vote" is collective.) I think we should NOT try to do all that in a single sentence, because a single sentence requires a connecting word like "but" or "despite," which seems to cast doubt on his election. What we need: First sentence in the paragraph says he won. Later we say she received more votes nationwide than he did, but neither received a majority of the popular vote. The current version in the article conveys the first two points well and with appropriate weight but leaves out "neither got a majority". Your version is virtually identical with the current version except it substitutes "not winning" instead of "not a plurality", but we had been trying to avoid the word "win" with regard to the popular vote. Maybe we shouldn't be picky about that; while "win" of the popular vote is not strictly accurate (it's not a contest with a "winner"), maybe it conveys the point better than than "plurality". I would accept either this version #5 or the current version. I'm coming to think we shouldn't try to get "nobody got a majority" into the lede, but leave it for the election section. I think we came to that same conclusion before and I'm getting there again. MelanieN alt (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, please note that the current version concisely implies that neither candidate got a popular majority. That is, by saying that Trump got less than a plurality, the current version implies that HRC got a plurality, which of course is less than a majority. So, I favor the current version, and agree with you that it's unnecessary to explicitly say in the lead that neither of them got a popular majority. But, if the word plurality is removed, then I do think it would be important for the lead to mention not just her accomplishment in getting more of the popular vote, but also his accomplishment in holding her to less than a majority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

To put it another way, I think the lead currently does all three things you mention: 1) Trump won the election, 2) Clinton got a larger share of the popular vote than he did, 3) neither of them received an actual majority of the popular vote. Plus it indicates 4) that Trump is not the first president to get less popular support. All in just 14 words!Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, we still need to remove the (unnecessary) "at age 70" because it confusingly makes it sound like his wealth is dependent on his age. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should remove "at age 70". Since it has been there a long time we will need consensus to remove it. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it as a big deal, but am okay with removing "at age 70." People can look at his birth date and do the math. Does anyone care if we also change "less than a plurality" to "less than his opponent's plurality"? And change "the fifth" to "one of the few presidents"? The latter acknowledges that Hayes did not get a plurality in 1876, that Nixon may have gotten a plurality in 18761960, and that no one knows what happened before 1824.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with "less than his opponent's plurality" which is totally unclear. And I think we should retain "fifth". I don't think any Reliable Source has said "a few" or "several" or any other attempt to dodge the issue. They said either fourth or fifth, depending how they counted 1824. (Nixon? 1876???) MelanieN alt (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Instead of "less than his opponent's plurality" I think it's adequate (and clearer) to say "less than the plurality" (i.e. not "less than a plurality").Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It should say either "at least the fourth" or "at least the fifth" or "the fifth since 1824". Bod (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with "at least the fourth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. It makes it sound like he was inaugurated on his birthday. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree that it is fine to remove his age, although it isn't a big deal. The best way to accurately capture all the information, without unnecessary implications is to say that "Hillary got a plurality of the popular vote". This shows that she was a) the top vote-getter b)less than a majority so c)Trump was less than majority and less than a plurality. Adding a simple "the" helps to break up the connection between oldest and wealthiest. It should be "government service" and it should lead with that because "military" is a subset of that.

6.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest, and the wealthiest, person to assume the presidency and the first without prior government or military service. Clinton received a plurality of the national popular vote, making Trump the fifth president elected with less than a plurality since 1824.

\\ Bod (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It repeats plurality twice. That's a bit redundant, don't you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes but if you're up for a real challenge try to rewrite it with just one "plurality". --Bod (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It's simple: drop the reference to Clinton. Just saying that Trump did not win a plurality means Clinton won it. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Support status quo which, by the way, is already "rewritten" with just one "plurality". Illustrating my view that at a certain point continued "improvement" creates as many problems as it solves. I see nothing seriously wrong with the current language; let it be. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: What about the "at age 70" issue I mentioned? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Not a serious problem to remove that, not a serious problem to keep it. I disagree that it implies a causal relationship between age and wealth. I think one has to think really hard to see that as a realistic potential problem—English prose is often imprecise and readers generally don't spend time analyzing it to that degree. The facts are correct—there are no grammatical errors—it is not unnecessarily verbose—I think that gets us past the point of diminishing returns. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Mandruss:. We've reached the point where these 'improvements' are beginning to create more problems than they can solve. The text is fine as is and I support ending this. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I oppose "since 1824" since it immediately makes the reader wonder: "what happened before 1824? Was it commonplace before that? Why did they say that?" If we must include it, we should say "since records began to be kept in 1824". I would prefer to leave it out. Reliable Sources don't seem to have a problem with saying "fifth". MelanieN alt (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Fifth is simply fake news. Various sources say fourth.. Did anyone win a plurality of the popular vote in 1876? No. Not Tilden and not Hayes (and not Nixon!).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your source says Hayes lost the popular vote. Bod (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

He did lose the popular vote. And Tilden won a majority of the popular vote. No one won a plurality of the popular vote. A plurality is "when a candidate or proposition polls more votes than any other, but does not receive a majority." That describes neither Tilden nor Hayes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

All that doesn't matter if the one elected had less than a plurality. Bod (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You really think that President Hayes was elected in 1876 with "less than the plurality" of the popular vote? No one won a plurality that year. If we change "fifth" to "fourth" then we convey a huge amount of information accurately, including that Clinton won a plurality rather than a majority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"less than the plurality" suggests the existence of a plurality, but "less than a plurality" does not imply the existence of a plurality as opposed to a majority. Bod (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Right. That's why the BLP presently says "less than the plurality". This informs the reader that Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote. Unlike Tilden in 1876.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe 8% of the readers... Bod (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And it currently says "fifth" and "the". Bod (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Right. It should instead say "fourth" and "the".Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I agree with SW3 and Mandruss: We have now made the one improvement that seemed to have consensus, namely, removing "since age 70". Other than that I think we should keep the established consensus sentence. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN alt: I had thought we had a consensus over that removal, but the edit was reverted by Kendall-K1 (talk · contribs). Do we have an agreement on this or not? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not read this discussion. I was going off the comment in the page markup and the "Current consensus" section at the top of this page. If consensus has changed, I suggest changing the comment and/or point 15 above to prevent this kind of misunderstanding. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that the "current consensus" section is a well-intentioned, but ultimately flawed idea. At the Barack Obama article, we had a system using an FAQ in the talk page header that worked very well. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

Where was there consensus to change from "fourth" to "fifth" in the lead?

When the RFC started, the lead used the word "fourth". Where was there consensus to change that? The article body says "fourth", and "fifth" is simply wrong (because the election of 1876 does not count as an instance where the election winner got less than the plurality of the popular vote). If no objection, I will revert to "fourth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, let me look at it. I thought "fifth" was more accurate and that the disputed one was 1824. I'll check it out and get back to you. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Misplaced Pages article on the subject, United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote, counts it as five. Are you saying that is incorrect, and that Misplaced Pages should contradict itself on this point? Yes, it's true that in 1876 someone was made president by Congress rather than by actual electoral majority. That happened in 1824 too. But the point we are making is, four previous people have become president (by whatever means) even though someone else got a larger share of the popular vote. And Trump is the fifth. I was pretty sure this article said "fifth" in the text also, but I'm not going to research the history. IMO it should say "fifth" both places. I know we have discussed this before and I thought we had agreed on that point, although we never had a formal RFC. Since then some people have argued for "at least the fifth" because we have no data before 1824. I don't like that but I will accept it. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

RE: The article body says "fourth": As a matter of fact, the article text DID say "fifth", until you changed it to "fourth" earlier today. So it is kind of a weak (some would say dishonest) argument for you to point out that the article body says "fourth", don't you think? MelanieN alt (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand, the article that the sentence links to is United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote which has 5 entries. Donald is #5 there so why would he be #4 here? ValarianB (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think we have the answer to your question "where was the consensus?" to say fifth. If you look at consensus #15 at the top of the page, where multiple changes were proposed but did not achieve consensus so the pre-RfC version was retained, there is a link that compares the proposed version with the pre-RfC version. BOTH versions - pre-existing and proposed - say "fifth".. That makes it pretty clear that although some of the proposed changes did not have consensus, "fifth" was generally accepted - was not even in contention. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede issues

There are a number of minor issues with the lede.

• Expand acronyms.
• Agree tense in the last paragraph.
• Use "candidate" not "contender" for unbiased language.
• Superscript the __th.
• Mention "Jamaica, Queens" in the lede as it features prominently in the bio and categorization and some people may not have heard of it.

-- Bod (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bodhi Peace:

• No, don't expand acronyms. They have links that explain them.
• Yes, tense needs to be consistent.
• Yes, 'candidate' is better than 'contender.' It wasn't a boxing match.
• Yes, superscript the_th
• Yes, Jamaica, Queens features prominently in Trump's life, which is why it's all over the article.

SW3 5DL (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I was about to add -- The "lede grafs" strike me as overly wordy, stuffed out of shape with info that properly belongs within the article, not in an abstract.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Early life / Education

These two sections are bare-bones. Like, less than 500 words for the first 22 years of someone who is presently the most powerful person on Earth. Is this era off limits somehow?

Back in the 1960s, being "packed off to military school" was generally a punishment, for incorrigible (unruly, law-breaking, violent, promiscuous, etc.) behaviour, sort of a "last chance" before reform school or prison. (The only other reason to go to military school was with West Point or Annapolis or similar as a goal.)

This is skimmed lightly over by referring to Trump as "energetic" and sorta making his parents sound like hippies wanting him "to channel his energy in a positive manner." But anyone who's actually read The Art of the Deal knows that Trump said when he was in second grade he punched him music teacher, and he has never made a secret of picking fights, intentionally breaking rules, and defying his parents, which would explain how they decided to enroll him sixty miles away at NYMA. When Donald was 17, Fred calls him "rough," and that's where it stops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weeb Dingle (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Weeb Dingle: WP:SOFIXIT. Nothing is off limits. Be bold. Make sure to back any additions with reliable sources (no tabloids, not your own opinion) and honor WP:BLP (no gratuitous, unfounded smears). If you can dig out reliable testimonies that Donald Trump was a teenage brat, that's fair game. — JFG 03:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"Nothing" is off limits? Really? Is that why this morning somebody had seen fit to write "false" at the top of the article? By the time I was able to log on five minutes later somebody else had already removed it, so that I did not have to. But should this article not be locked, given that the subject is rather contentious at the moment? People who are less contentious, in terms of their global reach, have had their articles locked. Alrewas (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I made the edit where the word "false" appeared in the article. It was not my intention and I have no idea how the word was included when I was making a BLP assertion. The BLP assertion remains and the claim in the Lede must accurately reflect the discussion in the body of the article which I do not think it does. Veriss (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

User Veriss1 has been banned from this article for one week, for editing against consensus #7. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alrewas: The article is currently under WP:30/500 protection, which is sufficient. It has been occasionally locked for a few hours on eventful days, e.g. during the inauguration. Believe it or not, there is actually very little vandalism these days! The documentation and enforcement of consensus wordings helps stem the tide of perennial change requests for a number of ideas which have been widely debated and settled. Feel free to edit and discuss. — JFG 16:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that and vigilant admins who revert and block right away. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Vice President in infobox

Shouldn't the Vice President parameter in the infobox link to Vice President of the United States to keep consistency with previous president articles? NoMoreHeroes (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, although I generally don't see a need for inter-article consistency that (1) lacks community consensus and (2) is noticed by no one but some Misplaced Pages editors. I'm quite certain that readers don't survey presidents' infoboxes checking them for formatting consistency (with the possible exception of a few who should be on OCD meds), and no reader is going to be thrown for a loop because some of them link "Vice President" and others do not. I might well cite WP:OVERLINK and prefer the cleaner look of an infobox that links only the label "alma mater", a Latin term that is not widely recognized.
Anyway, I can't figure out why this use of {{Infobox president}} does not link that while others do. Unless there is some way to control that in our wikicode, which doesn't jump out at me, it's a question for Template talk:Infobox officeholder. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed. The issue was that we had mixed "45th" and "President" in a single |office= parameter, whereas the correct practice is to place "45th" in |order=. — JFG 19:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert of "Donald Trump (Character) at the Internet Movie Database"

I'm told by Mandruss that my edit adding "Donald Trump (Character) at the Internet Movie Database" that Mandruss and earlier Sundayclose reverted should be discussed on the talk page—so here goes:

• Sundayclose reverted on February 6, 2017 with reasoning: "No need to single out SNL for an external link"
• My response after a few days was today to "put back imdb of Donald Trump (Character)-SNL is 1 of 120 instances in the list..."

That's quite a list that I think adds to the page. If we delete that then perhaps "Donald Trump at the Internet Movie Database" could go as some may not like something someone said etc etc. I've added "... (Character)" references at many pages and don't recall any problems. What say the community? DadaNeem (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I also took issue with Sundayclose's edit summary, and for the same reason, as seen at User talk:Mandruss#Trump. I take the ArbCom remedies seriously, I do my best to enforce them whether that serves my position or not, and they clearly say that disputed edits must have talk page consensus. And disputing the rationale for removal is not necessarily the same as opposing the removal. I generally abstain from External links issues since they seem relatively unimportant to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Health section

I removed a paragraph that discussed President Trump's mental health based on a letter to the editor of the New York Times. . Aside from the HIPAA laws, which would prevent a real doctor from making this claim, if any of that were actually true, making the statement that "Donald Trump is not mentally ill." and then going on to explain that he's a narcissist is still a BLP violation. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If it was a BLP violation, the editor who added it should be warned. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Apparently an admin believed it was a BLP vio, and revdel'd his edits. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Relates to source:

I posted:

There is a great deal of scuttlebutt going around about Trump's mental condition. This seems to answer most of that stuff in an authoritative way. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fred, I'm frankly surprised that you believe that what you added would be appropriate for a WP:BLP. The paragraph is referenced to a single source (a letter from a psychiatrist - who has never even met Mr Trump as far as I can tell - to a newspaper) and is being used to introduce the allegation that "he is narcissistic". Simply to say that his (alleged) narcissism doesn't rise to a personality disorder does not make it balanced. Your proposed paragraph also slides in that "some people" (who?) may consider his behaviour "harmful". This further allegation is unreferenced and far from neutral coverage. The paragraph isn't answering "most of that stuff" in an authoritative way, it's a thinly disguised character assassination. It was correctly reverted and deleted. WJBscribe (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, is what you posted above verbatim of what had to be deleted from the article's history? If so then it seems to be very bad decision-making on your part to post it again. Also, I restored User SW3 5DL's choice of subject line, there was no need for you to alter that. ValarianB (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree. Posting it again on this talk page after it had been rev-deleted is spectacularly nonsensical. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I posted a warning on his talk page.I'm trying to find an admin to revdel it. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There is NO way we are going to accept sensitive health information based on a letter to the editor for heavens sake, much less from an armchair psychiatrist, that is, someone who is just speculating and has never examined the person. For that matter we would only accept it from someone who HAD examined them if they had the person's permission to reveal it. Don't post this again. (Sorry, folks, I can't do the revdel because I don't have tools on this account.) MelanieN alt (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with you on the first point, what the hell are you on about with "arm-chair psychiatrist"? Diagnosis is absolutely possible without "examining the patient", (with the caveat that this does not apply to all diagnoses) — and that is exceedingly clear in DSM-V. With that in mind I find it ludicrous that someone with no experience whatsoever in the field throws out inane criticism of legitimate sources by calling them "arm-chair psychiatrists". Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Goldwater rule. --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that has no bearing on diagnosing someone based upon their behavior as assessed indirectly. The Goldwater rule is an esoteric ethical rule that only exists in the US, and has nothing to do with the validity of the diagnosis. Misplaced Pages has no reason to abide by the Goldwater rule, no policy that suggests we should refrain from reporting what international and non-APA-affiliated psychiatrists say — or even that we refrain from reporting what is said by APA-members in violation of that rule. Of note is that there has been significant debate about whether to rescind the rule within the APA because it doesn't make sense and acts to chastise professionals from speaking out on important issues. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I left a note on Bishonen's talk page. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the revisions. WJBscribe (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A statement that most politicians are narcissistic is so obvious it does not need a reference. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, having looked at the narcissism page, I don't see that the use of the word in a standalone context necessarily means that the word is being used in the strictly "DSM' sense, which is covered separately in the narcissistic personality disorder article. Simple "narcissism" probably wouldn't deserve to be included in the "health" section, however, although I don't see right now where it would necessarily reasonably be included, which would probably be more of a "personality" section. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, narcissism ≠ narcissistic personality disorder. Neither is it necessary to examine a person face to face in order to diagnose them — that is evident in the DSM-V defintion of NPD. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion of the Goldwater rule is here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but even that article only sees it through the very narrow lens of American politics. Outside the US psychopathography is a valid field, and while you may or may not agree with the ethical underpinnings of the Goldwater rule, it does not detract from how psychiatric diagnosis is possible (with certain caveats) without direct interaction with a subject. We as Misplaced Pages are not bound by the rule, and while it may be pertinent to discuss it in articles: invoking it to silence otherwise valid sources is per definition WP:CENSORSHIP and WP:NPOV. We should always strive to show both sides of the argument, and the question here is not whether we can discuss Trump's mental health or not per BLP (we can), but whether it is possible to do so in a neutral manner with high quality sources — and whether it is due. With the wealth of sources discussing it, I find that question to be very simple: Yes it is worth a mention. Possibly something along the lines of:

Donald Trump's mental health has been called into question by psychiatrists and mental health professionals — some going so far as to apply diagnoses such as narcissistic personality disorder. However other professionals contest this, suggesting any such categorization is a violation of the American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater rule, and thus would be both unethical as well as incorrect.

This paragraph is objectively not controversial. The debate here should be about whether such a section is due: not whether or not one likes it; whether one takes issue with violation of the Goldwater rule; or whether one believes either party is correct. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a distinct dearth of links to quality reliable sources in this discussion. It may be best for editors to provide some before continuing. - Ryk72 13:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The comment appears to be an attempt to bring into the article questions about the president's mental health. That is a BLP violation. Any speculation offered by unethical doctors looking for publicity at the expense of the president does not belong here. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There is so much value judgement in that sentence — and it entirely ignores so many policies. I will again repeat the two points to consider:

• Are there reliable sources? — Answer is: Yes
• Is it due? This is what we need to debate

Whether we see the doctors as unethical and evil, or even supremely altruistic and courageous (standing up to a bizarre rule) is beside the point, and engaging in discussion about that is only like to polarize the field and make everything worse. If you absolutely want to vote, base your argument on policies or sources, not on ad hominem attacks of the authors or sources.

WP:SHOUTING BLP is entirely pointless on an article on a public figure as well known as the freaking president of the United States... The following policy passage from BLP encapsulates it very well:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

WP:PUBLICFIGURE covers it, please go there before drawing such extreme conclusions SW3 5DL. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources discussion the issues with varying conclusions:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/mental-health-professionals-warn-about-trump.html?_r=0
• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/health/views/24mind.html
• http://www.inquisitr.com/2870145/malignant-and-psychopathic-donald-trump-expert-studies-600-hours-of-trump-footage/
• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/psychiatrists-debate-weighing-in-on-trumps-mental-health/
• www.businessinsider.com/al-franken-trump-mental-health-republican-senators-2017-2?op=1
• www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greene/is-donald-trump-mentally_b_13693174.html
• https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/30/trump-mental-health/
• https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychiatrists-cant-tell-us-what-they-think-about-trump/
• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38991171
• http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/13/therapists-are-debating-over-donald-trumps-mental-health-commentary.html
• http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/319130-franken-gop-colleagues-question-trumps-mental-health
• http://gothamist.com/2017/02/13/trump_mental_illness.php
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/08/stop-calling-trump-crazy/?utm_term=.ce51fb3d407e
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/07/the-american-psychiatric-association-reminds-its-doctors-no-psychoanalyzing-donald-trump/?utm_term=.987eba74a2f8
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nancy-pelosi-suggests-donald-trump-get-his-mental-health-checked_us_5893aa48e4b0c1284f250e44

And that is from a 5-minute search and from the first pages of a couple of result-pages. There are far more sources, and likely some that are much more reliable, so don't go around saying that this discussion violates BLP… Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Note also the following:

• http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/02/is-it-okay-to-speculate-about-donald-trumps-mental-health.html
• https://www.salon.com/2017/02/14/distorting-reality-politicians-mental-health-experts-say-theyre-worried-about-donald-trump/
• https://www.democracynow.org/2017/2/15/rep_ted_lieu_to_introduce_bill
• https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/the-president-hates-his-new-job/517029/
• https://www.inverse.com/article/26585-psychology-donald-trump-crazy-addiction-jokes
• http://thehill.com/homenews/house/318554-lawmaker-to-propose-a-bill-requiring-a-white-house-psychiatrist
• http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/12/media/andrew-sullivan-donald-trump-mental-health/
• https://theweek.com/articles/676734/heres-what-mental-health-experts-think-president-trumps-behavior
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/shrinks-break-silence-president-trump-exhibits-traits-m-article-1.2957688
• http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2017/02/donald_trumps_rage_reactions_l.html
• https://www.salon.com/2017/02/14/distorting-reality-politicians-mental-health-experts-say-theyre-worried-about-donald-trump/

Now we can evidently see that the subject exists in reliable sources, can we stick to the issue of whether or not it is WP:DUE instead of discussing the supposed and evidently non-existant violations of BLP which includes WP:PUBLICFIGURE, or various shortcomings of my character because I noted that similarly strong lists of sources exist calling Trump a fascist, or someone showing fascist tendencies? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• • I have to note that the post above with a load of opinionated reports was posted by User:CFCF - a user that also recently tried and failed to get Trump listed as a Fascist diff - as we can see, it is simply more of the same policy violating non neutral WP:BLP violating attack content - Users should support policy from a neutral position. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Note whatever you want, that doesn't make it true or at all relevant. I supported and still support including a mention of the myriad of sourcing discussing Trump's alleged fascist positions. How that would affect credibility when most of the major news sources have discussed it is frankly ridiculous. The BBC, NY-Times, WaPo, Politico, FP and others all discussed the issue, and it is frankly a violation of WP:NPOV not to include that information when 50+ sources discuss it, but I digress. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Digress as much as you like but do not hide it. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edit removing the {{Collapse top}} was in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, & WP:ADHOMINEM. I will also note for the record that there was no "failure" in including the section, I simply did not have the time to draft an RfC, and there may yet be mention of it. However this is unrelated to the discussion at hand, and this thread should be {{hat}}-ed. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: At issue is what, if any, content should be included under WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Your opinions about any other editor's motives or biases have no place on this page. Review WP:AGF and play the ball not the man. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, actually they were deemed to have a place as Carl Fredrik's ANI complaint was closed as a unanimous failure. If an editor is repeatedly making bad and potentially BLP-violating suggestions to a BLP article, then it is within any editor's purview to review his/her actions. ValarianB (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• The core of this issue is whether something like this qualifies to be in an article, or whether it is a BLP violation. I have posted the question at the BLP talk page to get additional opinions on this question. Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#Mental health of a subject. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As you say, the core of the issue is WP:DUE — and I won't argue either way as I've already stated my opinion. However WP:BLP section WP:PUBLICFIGURE makes this type of mention entire uncontroversial, and I have a hard time believing the BLP notice-board would come to any other conclusion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Its against multiple wikipedia policy policy and guidelines. It is simple partisan non wp:npov and wp:blp violating additions, sad to see an admin User:Fred Bauder adding content that requires rev deleting. If an administrator does not respect and or understand wp:policy and guidelines then he should resign. - Health concerns are simply that, has he had official health concerns that have been treated by doctors, no - opinionated chit chat about his mental heath whether reported in "reliable sources" should not be repeated here by experienced contributors in a living persons biography, we are requested to report conservatively and with caution. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV specifically states that both sides of an argument be heard, not that biased or non-neutral points not be heard. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• It's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife" to even mention it. Sharon Begley for Stat (the sixth or seventh source above) asked 10 psychiatric professionals and published their conclusion: President Trump is quite sane. But in the Health section you could mention Trump has to take finasteride. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless the Vice President & a majority of the cabinet are planning to invoke the 4th section of the 25th Amendment? I don't see any reason for adding such information on mental health speculation. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• The only reason you would include statements by psychs (remote-diagnosing) stating someone does *not* have a condition is if you were including statements by psychs (remote-diagnosing) stating they *did* have them. Since we are not doing the second, we do not need to rebut non-existant accusations with the first, otherwise its clearly UNDUE material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence proposal

I am proposing that we change the lead sentence to:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States.

It should mention that he is the current president. It was set up like that for Bush and Obama. It would also eliminate any confusion for people who might think there are 46+ presidents. I do realize that Trump being the current president is pretty much common knowledge, but we should never just assume that the reader knows that. Grapesoda22 23:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. --- CHAMPION 00:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see nothing to alter the position I took in the same debate a couple of weeks ago. In any case, a ton of discussion has gone into the current consensus for the first sentence (see the six (6) links for #11 at #Current consensus), and I don't think we're going to change that sentence without an RfC consensus to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Is implies current. MOS Writing precisely Bod (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Bodhi Peace: "Implying" something isn't the same as directly saying something. As for the precise writing rule the word "current" could be swapped out for "incumbent". Grapesoda22 03:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It looks awkward to use the word "and" in succession like that. Also, the hatnote already properly says he's the incumbent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Obama and Bush had headers formatted like that when they were in office with out concerns about the sentence's appearance. Also, we are talking about the lead sentence, not the hatnote. Grapesoda22 05:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Per WP:Lead, the hatnote is part of the lead, and we should "describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy." If the hatnote says he's the incumbent, I don't think the lead paragraph necessarily has to as well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Saying he is the 45th president means he is the current president. When he ceases to be president, we will say he was the 45th president. TFD (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. We've discussed this before. The present tense of the verb 'to be' = is. Saying he is the 45th president, means he is the current president. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - with the addition of "...since January 20, 2017" & similar additions for the Mike Pence intro. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support — looks much better. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. - As above comments - The present tense of the verb 'to be' = is. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Not necessary. ValarianB (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per numerous prior debates. This is as settled as it gets. — JFG 13:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Other suggestion:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, who is serving as the 45th President of the United States.

This sentence is more clear that it he is the current president, it complies with MOS Writing precisely, its not repeated information from the hatnote, and it isn't an akward looking sentence. Grapesoda22 00:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to restore the word "and" before "politician". I am personally OK with the "who is" construction, and in fact we had something like this in there a few months ago, but consensus at that time seemed against it. I would prefer at this time that we just stop the endless attempts to tweak this sentence and leave it as it is. MelanieN alt (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Already proposed and defeated. Please read the history of discussion about the first sentence, linked above. If you have a significant new argument, please present it; otherwise we don't get to keep re-raising issues until we get the desired result. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ya might be beating a dead horse here. Best to move on. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

He's not even really a television "personality anymore" (or barley at least). Even if he was being the president is way more relevant. Grapesoda22 04:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a businessman either since he turned over management to his sons. TFD (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh that is silly. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm troubled by the fact that the redundancy still stands after being flagged by multiple people and continues to wrongly imply two disparate roles. Bod (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Puzder

Businessman Andrew Puzder is still listed as a potential Secretary of Labor in Trumps cabinet @ 'Cabinet-level nominations'. What is the best way to show his withdrawal? Buster Seven Talk 14:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, User Coffee. Buster Seven Talk 15:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

America's Nehemiah, is it policy-wise worthy for addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.160.219 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, my name is Semeyer01 and I am quite new to the world of Misplaced Pages. I noticed that the Donald Trump page did not include a section about his his political views in the past. I was wondering if I could add to that section. The second thing I noticed was that in the Electoral History section is lackluster of information. The United States 2016 presidential election table does not include voting statistics for the green, libertarian, and independent runners of the election. Please allow me to edit so I can make these changes. Semeyer01 (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your best option is to post the exact piece you wish to be inserted into the main article so it can be reviewed. The block exists due to the persistant vandalism. For further information check out WP:BLUELOCK
Cheers,IVORK _Discuss 03:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to put politician and president in the same sentence.

This is overly redundant. Please clean this mess up. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sure there's megabytes on discussion on this, but I also think that "politician" should be taken out, given that he's not a politician outside of being a president, as silly as that may seem given the history of the presidency. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a ridiculous statement. The president is the biggest politician in the country. No one is more of a politician than the president. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: makes an excellent point. He was never a politician. He's being called one because he ran for office and won. Yesterday in his press conference he said he said he guessed he was one now. I think it's overstating "No one is more of a politiican than the president," since he held no political office or any government position, prior to being elected. But it is in the lede after much discussion and it will stay. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• It's not redundant. Politician is the profession(someone who seeks or holds a political office); President is the office that a politician holds. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Affiliations_with_Russia

A section about affiliations with Russia raises questions of whether there should be a sections with titles such as "Affiliations with Scotland", "Affiliations with Dubai", "Affiliations with Australia", "Affiliations with Turkey", "Affiliations with Panama", "Affiliations with Canada", "Affiliations with Indonesia" and so on. Why Russia particularly? This doesn't seem to indicate WP:NPOV. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Russia is the number 1 enemy of America since 1945. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In 2012, only 2% of Americans viewed Russia as the United States' greatest enemy, according to Gallup. In 2002, 66% of Americans viewed Russia favorably. North Korea currently tops the list as "greatest enemy" according to popular opinion. Trump would probably say the number 1 enemy of America is "radical Islamic terrorists" or ISIS. His affiliations with majority Muslim nations might be more controversial. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Because the the news has been focusing on the Russia-Trump issue for months now. That relationship is notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I would concur. Historically significant.Casprings (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we should scrap the picture in the section. Don't really need propaganda pictures in there. PackMecEng (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

One representative picture of dissent isn't propaganda. It makes the article more WP:N, which it isn't with the current picture set. I would suggest adding a pic of the woman's march also, for example.Casprings (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

vox is not a RS

vox is a source in the section called Affiliations with Russia. Vox is a liberal progressive propaganda organization. It is not a RS.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• C-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• C-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• C-Class New York (state) articles
• Top-importance New York (state) articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• C-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• C-Class United States Presidents articles
• High-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• C-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press