Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40

Celebrities Fleeing "Trump's America"

Can we have a section on this here. Pretty please? About how all these big-time celebrities swore up and down that they'd leave the country if a hateful, racist, mysogynistic, xenophobic, anti-LGBTQ, horrendous SOB such as Trump were to be actually elected? And then, when it happened, how absolutely not one of them followed through? That each and every one of them not only lied, but tried to influence voters to do the same? Doc talk 06:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Doc talk 07:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Support claims of leaving America was a fairly notable angle of the election program. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 06:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No it wasn't. It's absolutely undue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
That is absurd. There is a ton of coverage about this in the media. Doc talk 06:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No, there really isn't, although I guess it depends on what you consider "the media", and even if, this article ain't the place for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You claiming "undue" isn't going to wash. You know this, right? C'mon, man... Doc talk 07:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you have anything constructive to say or are you just going to keep typing "lol" as if that was some kind of brilliant insight? It's goofy gossip at best and it has no place in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Goofy gossip? This is why you lost the election. FYI... Doc talk 07:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Uh, ok. Please read WP:TALK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
What's undue about it? Doc talk 07:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
How about you try to articulate why it should be included? You know, like with sources and stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You're far too biased against Trump to have a NPOV discussion with. It's quite shameful that you've had the influence on this article that you've had. I hope it is diminished now that things have changed... Doc talk 07:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Didn't you get topic banned the last time you started up with the personal attacks? Again. Explain why this is so central to Trump's biography that it needs to be mentioned. Stop discussing editors. Discuss content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Shaddap. Doc talk 07:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Here is your chance to remove your offending comment. Feel free to remove this comment of mine right here (but not others) along with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I am offended that you are accusing me of offending you. Doc talk 07:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) Such a section would not be undue. There is plenty of coverage on the various celebs that said they would leave if Trump got elected [1] [2] [3] [4]. Athenean (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You've pretty much scrapped the barrel there and exhausted every story that was written over the course of a year long plus campaign. Please stop pretending that this was some big story (outside of far right media, neo-Nazi websites and fake news websites). And please explain why is this somehow central to Donald Trump's life? Especially after you edit warred to minimize the mention of sexual assault allegations, which are in fact a notable subject? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, wait, this is sort of funny. The CNN source is from the "Entertainment" section. And the first line is "it happens every presidential election". Ok ok, let me go to the Obama article... ... ... nope, nothing there about celebrities moving out of the country. George Bush. Nope, not there either. Millard Filmore. Oh wait, he got to be president cuz Taylor got pneumonia or something. Come on, can we please be serious here? This is trivial crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

If you really must, file a proper WP:RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Not necessary. Why would it be? Doc talk 07:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Care to describe how I've scraped "the bottom of the barrel"? Or is that just a colorful substitute for an argument? Can you find sources about celebs that said they would move out of the country if Obama won? That's right, didn't think so. You might also watch bandying about the "neo-Nazi" straq man argument, unless you can point out which of the sources I have presented are "neo-Nazi". Athenean (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You scraped the bottom of the barrel, by, like I said, picking out essentially every existing source printed over the course of the campaign. From borderline sources. I don't have to find any sources about celebs moving out if Obama won, because I don't wish to put that kind of stupid inane trivia into his article. And if you do a quick google search, it's easy to see that aside from the couple sources you mentioned above, it's pretty much all alt-right and neo-Nazi crap that keeps harping on this topic.
Seriously, if you really genuinely believe that this is something that is crucial to the biography of Donald Trump, start an RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Repeating a bare assertion, no matter how colorful, does not make it true. How do you know I've picked out "essentially every existing source printed over the course of the campaign"? Oh look, another "bottom of the barrel" source [5]. Wait, is that the Washington Post? Btw RfC is for when several users reach a genuine deadlock, not for one lone user's WP:IDONTLIKEIT objections to relevant, sourced material. Athenean (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This was brought up like moments ago. Just because you managed to jump in early does not mean you get to have your way. Here, let me state right here that I am challenging any content about this nonsense. Wait, is this article under discretionary sanctions? You cannot include this without clear consensus. That means an RfC. Oh look, Wikipedia policy. Or at the very least give it a bit of time so that others can comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Here's some more "scraping" [6]. Seriously if you wanted to argue against the addition of this material, you could try more convincing arguments. Attacking the sources as "neo-nazi" is just not going to cut it. Athenean (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah... not a reliable source. Maybe not neo-Nazi, but definitely not reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
And the "convincing argument" is simple. This is not something which is central to the life of Donald Trump.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
"Central" to the life of Donald Trump. Define "central". No limit on how many words you use. Doc talk 08:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Wait, did you just say the Washington Post is not reliable? Did I really read Volunteer Marek saying the Washington Post is not reliable? Both the Post and the Times are reliable sources. Your bare assertion to the contrary is just that, a bare assertion. Btw, no one said it's central (see straw man), just that it's worthy of mention somewhere in the article. Athenean (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't get too excited. I didn't say the Post wasn't reliable. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to misrepresent my statements. The Washington Times however is not reliable. And really, I get it, you know a latin phrase, you don't have to keep linking it it, doesn't magically make what you claim true just because it's in latin. It's not worthy of mention because it's "textbook trivia".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Well so far we've had a bare assertion, then we had a straw man, then WP:IDHT, then another bare assertion. What about the Washington Post? If it's significant enough for the WaPo to mention, why not for wikipedia. Answer, please. Athenean (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes sir! Right away sir! Seriously, can you drop the tone? So here is a reminder. Something being mentioned in the sources is a necessary (that's a Sine qua non) not a sufficient (that's a sinus quack quack) condition for inclusion. The answer is that this is an article about Donald Trump. Not about some goofy celebrities. So tell you what, why don't you take the few sources that you have and go to the articles of the celebrities themselves and try to include this info... oh wait. Never mind, that would violate BLP. I'm sorry, can't do that either.
But you know what is actually important and could possibly be included in this article? Donald Trump's use of twitter. Tons of stories about that. In real reliable sources. And how his staff had to take it away from him in the last weeks of the campaign because he couldn't control himself and almost sabotaged his own campaign [7]. Yeah, there should definitely be something about Trump n' Twitter here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Some more "scraping" [8]. This is one heck of a barrel. I keep scraping and scraping, and that bottom doesn't seem to end. It's the gift that keeps on giving, I tell ya. Regarding Twitter, believe it or not, I actually agree, however, you should be aware that there are sources state that his use of Twitter actually helped him win (as opposed to Hillary's highly professional PR staff). Not sure if you'd want that in the article though. And let's stay on subject, shall we? Athenean (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
"Trump supporters dare celebrities to pack their bags". Yeah. That's scrapping. But if we're gonna put things that Trump supporters do in to the article on Donald Trump, how about Trump Supporter Attacks Elderly Gay Man: "My President Says We Can Kill You"? If the celebrities stuff can be put in here, why can't that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Athenean [9], when somebody replies to your comment, and you want to change it because you did something wrong, then the proper thing to do is to strike the part of your comment that was incorrect, rather than alter your comment. Otherwise it looks like I'm replying to something that is not there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
So sad. First of all, it's "scraping", not "scrapping". "Scrapping" is what should be done with your influence on this article. Doc talk 09:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This is an argument, not a discussion. I honestly don't think either of you is going to win this argument, nor can I imagine what such a win would look like. Suggest a suspension of said argument and waiting for comments from others. I'm leaning toward one average length sentence, maybe two, certainly not a section. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

So attacks by Trump supporters can go in here too, right? There's plenty of sources for that as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Separate discussion. No linkage. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Same principle. And dealing with both at the same time we'll make it harder for some editors to try and apply double standards and twist themselves into logical pretzels of hypocrisy (not anyone here, just you know, that always happens).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Yes, one sentence is what I was thinking for the celebs. There is no need for more, really. Athenean (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Please hold off, per discretionary sanctions, on adding ANYTHING about this to the article, until more people have had a chance to comment. Better yet, please hold an RfC to determine consensus. The world is not going to end if we wait a bit (I hope).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree as to hold off, disagree as to RfC. This does not rise to RfC-worthiness in my opinion, and it's way premature to decide we can't reach a consensus without a time-consuming RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
There is of course no rush. However I do note so far there are 4-5 users in favor and only 1 against. Athenean (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I think this doesn't deserve inclusion. It's one of those fluffy issues that come up in election campaigns etc, and quickly get forgotten. We shouldn't try to preserve it. Wikipedia should only record the things that people will still want to know in five years' time.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Well the celebs' histrionics this time around were so severe, that they received quite a bit of coverage. I think this is something people would be interested in in 4 years' time. Doubtless we will see the same then. Athenean (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is not a forum for electioneering.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
"Wikipedia should only record the things that people will still want to know in five years' time" is a statement either: a) so "tongue-in-cheek" that it simply must support the proposal, or b) is so unbelievably inept that it is comical. Either way, it's amusing! Doc talk 09:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest this goes in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article or the United States presidential election, 2016 in general since they were trying to support Hillary as well. It seems notable for a campaign, not really for a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest it go nowhere. What coverage this has is fluff. Quasi-humorous pieces by commentators who have run out of other things to talk about. As many of these sources actually point out (see The Hill for instance) such talk is common before every hotly contested presidential election. And they never follow through on their threats. It was just talk and everybody knew it. MelanieN alt (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Support including it in nowhere. Where it belongs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Even if such a story made sense to include, how would you expect anyone to move out of the country within two weeks of the election? And if some celebs do move, I don't see that as worthy of inclusion either -- unless 5% of the country moves. Objective3000 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Am partial to PackMecEng's suggestion, i.e.put this in a different article, but agree with MelanieN completely. The publicity stunts/rantings of celebrities, many of whom are so coked up they can't remember what they said any further than yesterday, have no place in a BLP. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Correction: An addendum to what I said previously, I think that this should be a point made on the Donald Trump Presidential Campaign page. I do however believe that this was an issue that gained a substantial amount of press, from the BBC, etc, that should be mentioned, at least in passing. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 02:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
If, and I do mean if, we were to mention this, then we would have to say none of these celebrities ever left the country, for balance and perspective. It's sort of difficult to believe they all came up with the same idea on their own. Are there any sources that say their 'promises' to leave the country were just publicity stunts? Are there any sources that say they were approached with the idea of using their notoriety to sway public opinion and that none of them ever had any intentions of going anywhere thinking Trump would never actually win? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It's safe to say(?) that no sources will be found to say that celebrities were "approached with the idea of using their notiriety to sway public opinion and that none of them ever had any intentions of going anywhere". There are, however, multiple reliable sources that state (any said) celebrity's intention to leave the U.S., followed by multiple reliable sources that followed up on the fact that they did not. Whether they ever actually intended to leave either way should be left for the reader to decide. Duh duh daaaaaa!!! Doc talk 10:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It was even in "Cosmo"[10]. Very mainstream... Doc talk 11:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
How could anyone know if they aren't moving so soon? The election result was a surprise. How do you move to another country in two weeks? You need to select a country. You need obtain a work visa, which can be very difficult. If your spouse works, you need two work visas -- extremely difficult. You need to untangle yourself from current projects. You need to acquire a residence in that country. On top of this, many celebs that are listed as saying they'll leave were clearly joking: Cher said she'll move to Jupiter; Jon Stewart said to another planet; Natasha Lyonne said she'd move to a mental hospital; Spike Lee said he'd move to "the republic of Brooklyn." This is getting silly. Objective3000 (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Spot on. Here's to common sense. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It's on CNN.[11]. Huffington Post.[12] The CBC.[13] All the sources y'all like. And also sources y'all don't. It's not a "joke". It's not "trivial". It had major news coverage from all outlets. Doc talk 13:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose including the proposed content in any form. It's non-biographical trivia and speculation.- MrX 13:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Doc, I hear ya and I'm not unsympathetic. I have long struggled with the WP:DUE thing. On the one hand, it would appear to give us an objective measure of a bit of proposed content. But WP:DUE doesn't tell us how much RS is enough. And I have often seen very experienced editors who I respect applying editorial judgment that supersedes the RS, and that winning a durable consensus. That appears to be what is happening here. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Doc, you listed three sources. Yes CNN is a news network; but it was in the entertainment section and starts out by saying this happens every election. The Huffington Post cite was to their Canadian edition, and appears to be making light of the US election. CBC is Canadian and points out that the PM said this happens every election. Objective3000 (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
In that case, what I describe isn't what is happening here after all, although it does happen a lot. Perfectly good RS is overriden by editorial judgment. I note that MrX didn't say anything about the details of the RS as Objective3000 has done. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose absoultely not biographically significant to Trump. If a celebrity does move out of the U.S., it's biographically significant to him/her/them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Objective3000, MrX, MelanieN, .Volunteer Marek, Jack Upland, Muboshgu -- oppose inclusion. My questions about whether there are sources that mention publicity stunts or whether the celeb's were approached, etc was rhetorical, aimed at demonstrating how contrived and frivolous these claims were. Anyway, we might even be helping Trump if we were to mention the rantings of celeb's, so if anyone is going to further entertain the idea of mentioning this fiasco it should be done so with one, or in the same, sentence covering protests. Presently the Presidential campaign, 2016 section is largely committed to the claims made by Trump's opposition, rather than the established facts regarding the campaign. e.g.There's only one sentence committed to the ideas Trump was, in fact, promoting during his campaign, while there are paragraphs committed to his opposition. Presently the section is begging for a POV tag. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maybe appropriate in the campaign article (I'd have to research further) but not in the man's biography. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Let's hope that's the final nail in the celebrity's coffins. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Sounds mighty hateful. Love trumps hate, you know. Doc talk 07:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
While we're sharing philosophical advice, remember things like "hate" are often in the eye of the beholder, and that three fingers point back. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
"Don't blame me! I voted for Kodos!" Doc talk 08:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, not appropriate for main article, whether appropriate for the campaign article is subject to a discussion on that article's talk page. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Major campaign issue. Celebrities continue to play an increasingly larger role with each election cycle. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose In case it wasn't obvious, for the reasons I've stated previously in this section. Objective3000 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate official website

Yesterday, I changed the official website to donaldjtrump.com, which is the official website of Donald J. Trump. I explained my reasoning in the above RfC. Dervorguilla just changed it to a website about the transition of Trump's presidency.

I contend that this is an inappropriate link for a biography, where the subject already has a well-known website. Also, editors in the RfC above were concerned that the transition website doesn't link to the subject's social media profiles. Using the correct link (donaldjtrump.com) neatly solves that issue as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support, but why not link them all? After all, the article on Barack Obama has three websites linked: the White House site, his personal site, and his foundation. JasperTECH (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • List both per preceding - donaldjtrump first as primary. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • List both. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - To clarify, I'm not opposed to listing all of the websites, but the infobox official website and {{Official website|}} should be the subject's official website. - MrX 02:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • In the Barack Obama page, none of the sites linked are called the "official website." Maybe it could be renamed "personal website" or something. (I do agree that the donaldjtrump site should be the primary one though.) JasperTECH (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Presidential transition site should remain official site – When Trump became President-elect, his infobox was changed from {{Infobox person}} to {{Infobox officeholder}}, therefore the "official website" field should be about the office he holds, i.e. the presidential transition site greatagain.gov. His namesake site donaldjtrump.com was his campaign site, it is no longer relevant for current news, actually his Twitter account would be a better link, so I support adding both donaldjtrump.com and @realDonaldTrump to the infobox, after the current official site greatagain.gov. — JFG talk 04:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    @realDonaldTrump is not a website. I believe the websites that are open for consideration are donaldjtrump.com and greatagain.gov. - MrX 17:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, obviously I mean @realDonaldTrump, but that's a wider discussion for Template talk:Infobox person. In any case donaldjtrump.com is now an obsolete campaign website, not a contender for current official site of DJT. — JFG talk 22:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • List the .gov site = the only official Trump site. The page-info metadata emphasize the difference.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com - title: Donald J Trump for President
https://www.greatagain.gov - title: President Elect Donald J. Trump
Admittedly, his press people are still trying to provide some updated content for the old legacy campaign site. But we don't want to mislead readers about which site they should use as the source for complete, unaltered, official documents published on or after November 6. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Two questions: 1. Can you provide a source that the .gov website is Donald Trump's official website? 2. I'm sure you realize that he will only be president-elect for another 51 days. Then what?- MrX 03:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@MrX: 1. No. 2. No idea. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Dervorguilla. then you shouldn't have changed it in the article. To do so without any reasoning is obnoxious.- MrX 15:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@MrX: 1. You must be kidding? 2. Probably www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump, we'll see what happens when he gets there. Today he is President-Elect, nothing is more official. — JFG talk 06:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
JFG, why must I be kidding? As far as I can tell, greatagain.gov is a temporary website. Hardly the type of website that should be official for a biography.- MrX 15:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking that no third-party source would be required to confirm such an obvious statement that, in effect, the President-Elect's office is the official site of the President-Elect. Nothing personal :) And yes it's temporary but that makes it no less official and current; thankfully some editor will gladly update it the very minute whitehouse.gov adds a Trump bio (and we'll probably get some creative vandalism too; save the popcorn!) — JFG talk 15:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

picture

Please contribute to active RfC at #Trump Photo 2 Rfc. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

his and hillarys needs to be SMILING! they both need to be happy! ok?? we cant be biased m8. @@@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.32.87 (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Lack of smile is no bias. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not smile. Please read numerous comments above at #Trump Photo 2 Rfc, and you may contribute your opinion there. — JFG talk 07:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Climate change section is POV

Recently deleted in the Climate change section were sourced statements saying that Trump and his campaign manager Ebell acknowledge climate change. Also deleted were sourced statements by Trump that there is "some connectivity" with humans and that he doubts humans are primarily responsible. Several attempts were made to be clear about this matter, but reverts and revisions to the contrary continue to occur. To get around the 1RR there has been a slow-mo edit war going on where a couple of editors insist on inserting the partisan trigger word of "denial" while they continue to remove clarifying statements. "Climate change denial" is a blunt and partisan term that means what it says, 'denial of climate change', which leads the reader to believe that Trump categorically denies any change at all. This has gone back and forth long enough, hence the POV tag in that section. There are plenty of sources that support Trump's statement of some human connectivity and that he acknowledges climate change. Yet there is a claim in edit history that any skepticism at all amounts to "denial", which is obviously POV and an opinion. (he never outright "denies" climate change and human connectivity) Also, there is no source that outright claims Ebell denies any climate change at all, which is how the current section reads. This is nonsense and beneath the purpose of Wikipedia. We need to restore the sourced statements that say Trump is skeptical and that he acknowledges climate change and some human connectivity so the readers are not mislead into thinking he denies everything categorically. This matter needs to be resolved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump is well-known for changing his mind on all sorts of subjects. He did call climate change a hoax, but he also later stated that some connectivity exists. The question is, are his numerous flip-flops in opinion notable enough to be mentioned in the article, considering that we're trying to edit it down anyway? I'm in favor of removing the phrase "repeatedly saying that global warming is a 'hoax'." After all, the scientific consensus is not just that climate change is real, but also that it is caused by humans. JasperTECH (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Gwillhickers and JasperTECH. The section is POV and also seems undue. Trump seems aware that climate change is real and that humans contribute to it. That's all that needs to be there. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but were not going to revise or erase the historical facts every time the subject hedges his bets.- MrX 21:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. MrX, no one wants to "erase" the facts, and if Trump has indeed changed his mind this should be mentioned. Speaking of erased facts, this is what has just occurred in the section as mentioned above in the opening statement. Regardless of Trump's "hoax" claim, which was made in regards to the EPA, I'm sure he still is largely in agreement with this, so we need to clarify Trump's position and stay clear of these partisan POV labels (i.e."denial") that have slanted the account. This is Wikipedia. We don't use labels to make any point, we describe the facts and back them up with sources. This is fair to all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Where's the majority of reliable sources that say he's changed his mind from "global warming's a scam invented by the Chinese" to the very anti-environmental things he said this month to "it's real man"? You can't just psychoanalyze the man and say that extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence. The whiplash of his statements on this topic are so 1984-like that it would be censorship to just show the most flattering. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Here's a reliable source headlined "What’s Donald Trump’s position on climate change? All of them." Half a dozen different positions in fact. Where's your reliable source that knows for sure what his position is before he starts signing bills and orders? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
First, it's not a good idea to label a talk page section with your pov. Regarding content, the "hoax" material has been reported on extensively and per WP:Weight should absolutely remain. The material about the EPA is a no-brainer and should certainly remain as the department will soon be under his dominion (which makes Myron Ebell relevant as well). The fact that he just recently stated he has an "open mind" carries very little weight as he still doesn't accept the scientific opinion on climate change --- Trump on Climate Change (November 23, 2016) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure he still is largely in agreement with this. I'm trying to avoid responding to your snarks with snarks of my own; but you appear to know more about Trump's beliefs than he. Seriously, how do we know his positions when they are dramatically changing day-by-day? Objective3000 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Nothing has been presented here, or anywhere, that changes the fact that Trump has clarified (or "changed" if you prefer) his opinion that some climate change has occurred and that he remains skeptical that humans are primarily the cause. This was outlined and source in the section but deleted all the while the POV and misleading weasel word "denial" has replaced any attempt to clarify matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Clarified is a strange way to put claiming just about every possible Republican GW position at various locations in space-time. One of them being "global warming is an anachronistic Chinese scam". And even the least extreme of which is still kindof far from reality (though these myths are probably common unlike his extreme claim). When a man changes his position this much on different issues either the positions should all go in the article or none should. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"Climate change denier" is a loaded term which can cover a lot of positions from outright denial that burning fossil fuels has any global influence on the climate to starry-eyed optimism that climbing CO2 is a positive development for the planet because it helps forests and crops grow faster. As some editors put it, we have no way to assess what is really in Trump's mind, if anything, about this complex subject, so we should keep as neutral as possible. It is ultimately pointless to dwell on Trump's inconsistencies because facts do not matter to people with an agenda on either side of the climate policy. Concretely, I think Gwillhickers' suggestions for clarification are better than the current pile-on. Trump does not deny human influence on the climate (except in jest at the Chinese) but he minimizes the extent of that influence and feels that fears of catastrophic change are overblown. He wants to promote all sources of energy and turn the USA into a net energy exporter; those are the key differences with his opponents which will likely inform his energy policies. — JFG talk 02:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. And if the section is significantly shortened, then one sentence can be used to cover his position on climate change: "Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change." Since the scientific consensus includes both that climate change is real and that it is caused by humans, it won't matter how many times he's changed his opinion on it, because he's never claimed that humans play a major role in global warming. As the article on the scientific consensus on climate change states, "The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans." JasperTECH (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with JFG and JasperTech. indeed, "climate chage denier" is divisive, POV and misleading. Here is the content that was removed before the section was tagged.

Trump has appointed Myron Ebell, director of the advocacy group the Competitive Enterprise Institute, as head of the future EPA transition team.[1] Ebell is not a climate scientist, and along with Trump, is a prominent skeptic that climate change is primarily caused by humans.[2] Trump acknowledges that climate change has occurred[3] and admits to "some connectivity" with human activity [4] but is sometimes referred to as a "climate change denier" anyway.[2]

  1. ^ Bravender, Robin. "Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition". Scientific American.
  2. ^ a b Greshko, Michael (November 9, 2016). "The Global Dangers of Trump's Climate Denial". National Geographic. Retrieved November 24, 2016.
  3. ^ "In Their Own Words: 2016 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change" (PDF). Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  4. ^ "Trump admits to "some connectivity" with human activity". CNN. Retrieved November 26, 2016.

These statements are all true and all sourced and reflect the latest position of Trump and Ebell. I am open to any tweaking of the prose so long as the clarity remains intact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You cannot put that without putting the full range of half dozen positions. You can say he said the Chinese thing was a joke (frankly I think he doesn't believe it but wants the people who want to believe it believe that Trump believes it while other Trump sympathizers believe it's a joke or an ends justify the means dog whistle at the conspiracy theorist vote. But I am not a WP:reliable source). That is a slanted spin to make Trump look good when he has said at other times that humans have nothing to do with it, it's a hoax, or a waste of money. He has never agreed with the scientists either cause if he did he'd not say he this month that was going to get out of the Paris Treaty (and cut NASA's climate budget). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying we should include sort of a timeline of changing opinion, not that it has in every respect, or we should just give the readers an obtuse representation of Trump's position and let them think he is a flat our and categorical "denier"? There is no reason why we should not be clear on matters. If you want to mention and clarify any changing opinion, you are welcome to add that along with any source(s), but trying to keep the latest account on Trump's position out of the article so you can just say he's a "denier" is nonsense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Support proposed text as is. Suggest adding something on his energy policy, which is closely connected to the climate change discussion, and ties in with his foreign policy ("get out of useless wars") and economic policy ("produce domestically to create value and reduce the country's debt") as well. For example: "Trump advocates domestic industrial support for both fossil and renewable energy sources in order to curb reliance on Middle-Eastern oil and possibly turn the USA into a net energy exporter." — JFG talk 10:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem with mentioning more than one of Trump's statements, but I oppose removing climate change denial as a descriptor, based on WP:PSCI and the predominant definitions of climate change denial. Some forms of climate change denial include 1. Denying that the planet is warming at all, 2. Denying that humans have any contribution, 3. Denying that either of these things are fact, e.g. suggesting they are unknown or conjecture. Trump's statements sometimes avoid the first two, but never avoid all three. Someone who said about Apollo 11 that the Moon had 'some involvement. Some, something. It depends on how much' is denying that it was a historical event that clearly happened, even if they aren't saying outright it didn't happen. Climate change denier is the prefered term among the scientific community for people who cast unwarranted doubt in various ways on anthropogenic global warming. Gwillhickers' attempt to label it a 'partisan trigger word' is itself partisan. WP:PSCI says The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. Not using the term preferred by climate scientists that is clearest about the pseudoscience looks like violation of this policy.

I strongly oppose Gwillhickers' attempt to rename Trump's views 'skepticism': skepticism implies reasoned doubt over a fact there is no reason to doubt. We now have direct observational evidence that greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the planet and that they were produced by humans. Saying you have 'an open mind' about what we can see with our eyes and that 'it depends on how much' connection there is between humans and global warming is not skepticism, it is denial. Madshurtie (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Aha, there we go! I was trying to think of a proper term to put in the article, and anthropogenic global warming is perfect. Some really good points about the climate change denial article there, too. I didn't realize that it was such an all-encompassing term. It looks like it'll be consistent with policy to leave it as "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" or to call it "climate change denial", or, for more clarity, using the term you described above: anthropogenic global warming (even though they're synonymous). Basically, whichever of these options other editors seem to agree most on. I also strongly oppose making the article say anything about Trump being "skeptical" of climate change. JasperTECH (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@JasperTech: Man-made global warming is equally good if you want a more plain English alternative. AGW denial and man-made global warming denial are more specific (better really) terms, but climate change denial encompasses those in widespread usage, and has value as a more common label as per WP:UCRN. I think using all of the above in different sentences, as the section currently does is fine. Climate change skepticism is a common but incorrect term. Madshurtie (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Just want to point out that Climate change skepticism redirects to Climate change denial, because that's what it is, the word "skepticism" just being Orwellian PR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your view, but it can also be said that the obtuse term of "denial" is Orwellian PR. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
No, its mainstream among the climate science community, and Wikipedia's own consensus on the respective article. Madshurtie (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Many mainstream scientists and sources use the term skeptic, or skepticism, including Scientific American, The Washington Times, USA Today, LA Times, Washington Post, FactCheck.org. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion about global warming — JFG talk 15:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Global warming discussion

We can haggle all we like about which is the more appropriate term to use, at one point we used both, but the fact remains, Trump and Ebell have both acknowledged that climate change has occurred and both have qualified their positions and maintain that human activity is marginal compared to the natural forces of nature, the likes of which have caused the earth to warm time and again, long before the industrial revolution. Having doubts as to the degree of human causes is not denial in the manner some would have us believe. Again 'climate change denial' implies that Trump categorically denies any and all warming, which is not the case. Calling this "denial" is one sided and rank POV pushing.
Also the "97% consensus", was the result of a survey first conducted by Kendall Zimmerman, a masters student and was based on a two question online survey and conveniently did not include the consensus of many known skeptical scientists. Cherry picking the data. Out of the scientists surveyed only 5% of them were climate scientists. Moreover, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset, and of the papers they submitted, 25% of them took no position on anthropogenic causes of warming. Further, the papers that were chosen conveniently excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of the degree of anthropogenic causes. The various claims made in these academic papers frequently differed from one another as well. The idea that 97% of scientists are in lock step with one another is a spurious claim, often the result of peer pressure, not peer review. Many of these scientists maintain that the degree of anthropogenic global warming doesn't merit any changes in public policy.[1] not represented in this 97% claim are 31,000 scientists who say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans are primarily the cause global warming.[2] Another study maintains that an estimated 40% of scientists doubt man is the primary cause of climate change.[3] In yet another account another ignored peer-reviewed survey found the majority of scientists are skeptical of the global warming crisis, claiming the data is cherry picked and the studies are biased from the start.[4] Hence Trump's claim of "politicized science". In yet another study by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, "a government body, invited 6550 scientists working in climate related fields, including climate physics, climate impact, and mitigation, to take part in a survey on their views of climate science. Of the 1868 who responded, just 43 percent agreed with the IPCC".[5]
You can debate that of course and also engage in a reliable source war if you like, but this matter is hardly carved in stone and too many variables remain unresolved, so we must present this advent in a neutral fashion and stay away from loaded and misleading POV terms, esp where controversial issues are concerned.

In any case I think we can all agree that Trump's position needs to be represented accurately. The last sentence in the Climate change section doesn't do this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ National Review
  2. ^ OSS Foundation
  3. ^ National Association of Scholars
  4. ^ Forbes
  5. ^ PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency
At this point, having doubts whether humans are warming the planet is denial, not least because our satellites can see less heat being radiated into space solely in the spectra greenhouse gases absorb—the major atmospheric gas of which has isotope markers specifically of fossil fuel origin. When we can directly see the process in action, doubting whether humans are warming the planet becomes like doubting the existence of continental plates or Mr. Donald Trump. Almost everything Gwillhickers has said about the 97% consensus is wrong, which he would find out if he looked at the range of research producing similar figures, instead of only investigating one individual poll by looking at op-eds and unreliable sources. It is telling that I cited my claims about radiation and isotopes to the peer-reviewed literature while he cites his to junk. the natural forces of nature, the likes of which have caused the earth to warm time and again, long before the industrial revolution. This is textbook climate denial by Gwillhickers, since none of the sufficient natural forces of nature are currently exerting warming effects in the data. I see no acceptable arguments here for rejecting the mainstream use among scientists and Wikipedia of the term climate change denial. Madshurtie (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, the source Gwillhickers cites to produce 31,000 scientists who reject AGW is actually pointing out that almost all of these scientists aren't climate scientists and that they don't even need to be professionals to sign it, they just need to have a B.S. degree. In reality, almost no scientists actually publish peer-reviewed research rejecting AGW these days, and the larger minority who have denial viewpoints almost entirely push their views in op-eds and other public environments. Madshurtie (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment : Madshurtie, as I said, you can engage in a debate and selectively snipe at the sources, I cited five, including the one that says that out of the 97% figure, only five percent were climate scientists and their opinions vary. And it's only an opinion that any skepticism amounts to "denial". Many disagree with such an obtuse and unclear claim, and rightly so. Some people rely on labels. e.g. Spanking a child is referred to as "child beating" by some. Same obtuse and misleading terminology. We need to be clear on matters and not try to wooo the reader into an opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I initially didn't bother selectively sniping at anything: none of the sources you cited had any scientific authority. I just found it amusing that one of them directly critiqued what you were citing it for (and happens to think AGW is fact). I also didn't bother debating any of those points because almost all of them are flatly contradicted by the range of research saying the opposite. Of course, producing a body of text designed to create doubt over AGW and trying to head off observations that it's mostly rubbish by saying you can debate that of course and also engage in a reliable source war if you like is a bit cheap.
Global warming and AGW are directly observed, so any 'skepticism' about those two facts is now denial. There is no opinion. Warranted skepticism is possible about some aspects of climate science research but not about whether the planet is warming or whether humans are the primary cause. WP:PSCI says we should indeed wooo the reader into an opinion—the opinion that climate change denial is pseudoscience and considered so by the overwhelming consensus of the climate science community. Madshurtie (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump has been denying climate change for years. In a broad-based interview last Tuesday, he said he had an open mind. Then immediately added that the hottest days were in 1898, an argument used by climate change deniers. He is well-known for shifting positions, sometimes within hours. Frankly, I'm not sure we know for certain most of his positions since so many seem to be radically changing. I think we need to go with what he has repeatedly said during the campaign, until he actually makes a prepared statement on the subject. Until then, the current text appears to match what he has been saying throughout the campaign and looks neutral to me. Objective3000 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Trump could have flat out denied any and all global warming from 'day one', but his recent position and statements doesn't reflect this. If there are sources that 'explain' (not just make general and sweeping claims) how Trump originally and categorically denied any and all global warming, we should say that. However, we have sources, good ones, that explain Trump's latest positions so we need to be clear about that also. Is it your intention to say, 'Once upon a time Trump denied global warming -- period', while you ignore his latest positions? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not a debate on global warming

Gents, let's not turn this discussion into a debate on global warming itself; Wikipedia has seen enough of those, and we won't ever settle it. The point debated here is how to describe Trump's positions and policies on climate and energy, giving due weight to his current stance as well as his hesitations and unfounded claims on the issue. This is hardly the only domain where he made bolsterous claims during the campaign and then refined those into a pragmatic and workable policy (see immigration, NATO, abortion, The Wall™, Obamacare, etc.). Wikipedia should not get hysterical about his shocking pronouncements, just report them alongside his actual deeds when they become clearer. — JFG talk 04:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: I realized it was getting off topic, although admittedly an attempt to create doubt about whether global warming and AGW are fact is an attempt to create doubt over whether we should use the term denial. We, and the bulk of climate scientists, describe doubt about GW and AGW as denial because that's what you call doubting directly observed facts accepted by the overwhelming consensus of the climate science community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madshurtie (talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing global warming in this page? The matter is not the factual nature of the event, the so-called scientific consensus, or statistics. We should simply summarize what Trump has stated on the topic at various times, probably along with the time when he did so. If Trump makes a silly claim about World War II, that does not mean we have to replicate the article on World War II here. Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It's an outgrowth of Gwillhickers saying we shouldn't refer to Trump's beliefs as climate change denial, instead we should call them skepticism. That started a discussion about what terms were appropriate, and since part of the reason for the term 'climate change denial' is that doubting GW and AGW requires denying facts, it degenerated into an argument over whether that premise is correct. I think I'll collapse the stuff about the truth of global warming to try to keep the section on topic. Madshurtie (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

More pointless 'discussion' about GW

The "bulk" of scientists used to say there were four bodily humors. This was the "overwhelming consensus" for hundreds of years. Good thing science is not truly based on the consensus of the majority of scientists, but rather on the questioning of their methods. Doc talk 12:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Doc9871: Yes, scientists revise their theories when more information comes in (though whether you'd call believers in humors 'scientists' I'm not sure sure). Just like they did in the 20th C. with special relativity, plate tectonics, and, um, global warming. Fortunately we don't just have to point to the overwhelming consensus, we can point to the direct observations of greenhouse gasses trapping heat in the planet and the gasses' fossil fuel origin. Madshurtie (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
If one didn't believe in the bodily humors when it was the general scientifically accepted fact, one would have been considered anything but a scientist, indeed. They would have been a "heretic" really. There's no correlation to the modern-day scientific community. My mistake. Doc talk 12:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
When the scientific revolution happened, it wasn't long until the theory of humors was abandoned, so I'm not sure scientists even existed in humoral medicine. It was never a fact, though it might have been generally accepted among physicians. Global warming is a fact, and it's overwhelmingly accepted by climate scientists. Madshurtie (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a debate about POV terms

{The issue of POV terms need to be resolved and the discussion touches on global warming from time to time. Please don't hide the discussion until the matter is resolved.)

"Denial" grossly misrepresents the wide variety of opinion out there. No one 'disputes the facts' i.e.warming and human caused CO2 which is largely scrubbed out of the air. If it wasn't sun light would have dimmed and we would have suffocated long ago. What's at issue is if man made CO2 is the sole reason behind warming, as compared to other natural forces, (i.e.underwater volcanoes in the arctic, natural geologic warming of the surface, which varies from century to century, and other natural shifts in weather, etc).
The 'bulk of scientists' are questionably represented given the political inclinations involved and the many scientists who are routinely ignored by a largely partisan media. Remember Gore's opening statement in his 'An Inconvenient Truth' presentation? -- "Hi, I used to be the next president of the United States." -- That right off set the political tone and partisan division that has wooed the naive and infested the debate over GW. Since then "denial" has proven to be a one sided and obtuse term that doesn't address the wide variety of opinion out there. "Denial" is an unclear, partisan and POV term, and as such should be used in its proper context, i.e. "Sometimes referred to as Climate change denial". Once again, when this term is used by itself and out of context it becomes a grossly misleading and divisive claim and does a disservice to those readers who would like a more specific account on matters. Again, we need to be clear on matters and accurately describe Trump's position. Virtually none of Trump's supporters use the term, only his opponents do. No? Name one prominent Trump supporter who has described Trump with such a weasel worded term. It's no coincidence that virtually all Republicans and Democrats don't use/use the term respectively. "Politicized science". As such, we need to write the account clearly, which is fair to all. "Denial" is a narrow term, while skepticism addresses the wide variety of opinion out there which is not all black and white. Referring to 'any' form of skepticism as "denial" is POV. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Climate change denial is not a narrow term, it is used in a range of ways. It does encompasses people who doubt whether the planet is warming or whether this is because of human activity. Skepticism does not encompass these views, because they are not skeptical views. warming and human caused CO2 which is largely scrubbed out of the air. If it wasn't sun light would have dimmed and we would have suffocated long ago. What's at issue is if man made CO2 is the sole reason behind warming, as compared to other natural forces I thought you just said this is a debate about POV terms. Madshurtie (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
As I see it you are making the same mistake you made with regard to the infobox image. You are attempting to engage in wide-reaching meta discussion on an article talk page. You are debating questions that are much larger than Donald Trump. While I wouldn't suggest that such discussion is out-of-place at Wikipedia, my suggestion is to find a more suitable venue for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
'Well at least you say "As I see it". Thanx. I'm sorry if the discussion isn't as simple and black and white as you'd like it. Please address the discussion, or start a new section and make your own statement. I asked if it was anyone's intention to simply say, 'Once upon a time Trump "denied" global waring -- period.' Instead of side stepping questions and hiding the discussion, this needs to be resolved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Extended wrong-venue discussion will be "hidden", that's how it works despite your spurious accusations of bad faith. No one is required to discuss anything with you anywhere, let alone in the wrong venue, and my suggestion to others would be to disengage and ignore you. That's what I'm doing. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you are free to ignore what you like. Please don't expect everyone else will do the same and hide the discussion (not that you resorted to that this time). Once again, the topic can get involved. When it does, you can always ignore it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


Is it your intention to say in so many words, 'Once upon a time Trump denied global warming -- period', while we ignore his latest positions? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Good thing the section doesn't just say he once denied the planet is warming. Even now, Trump hasn't given a clear acceptance of the facts the planet is warming or that humans are the only major cause. This is the meaning of the phrase 'climate change denial' as it is widely used on Wikipedia and among scientists. It doesn't matter what terms politicians use, because it is a matter of scientific concern. Madshurtie (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Once again, scientific opinions varies, which has typically been ignored by most media accounts. It seems the greater bulk of sources/citations used in the entire article are media accounts. Your various blanket rebuttals lack any comprehensive explanation.
In any case, the section is not clear about Trump's position. His statements about "some connectivity" and "politicized science" have been repeatedly deleted, while the section currently says -- "Trump has appointed Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute advocacy group, as head of the future EPA transition team. Ebell has no scientific qualifications, and is well-known for denying that Earth is warming or that humans are responsible." Once again, Trump (and Ebell) are grossly misrepresented in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Taking steps towards resolution

If there are no objections I would like to restore statements that cover Trump's acknowledgement of some connectivity and his opinion that much of the science is politicized. Both of these claims got national attention and were covered by numerous reliable sources that are used in this article elsewhere, including CNN, Politico, The Guardian, Huffington Post, et al. (1, 2) That would be at least a first step in trying to resolve the overall issue of neutrality in the Climate change section. Once we get over that hurdle then we need to finally strike a compromise about using 'both' the terms "denial" and "skepticism". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, and I would suggest making your proposed edits directly in the #Working draft section below. No point working on a long version when it will be trimmed soon. And with brevity comes clarity! — JFG talk 17:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any change in position. After years of denial, he answered a question, off-the-cuff, that he would keep an open mind. But, the next day, Preibus said: as far as this issue on climate change -- the only thing he was saying after being asked a few questions about it is, look, he'll have an open mind about it but he has his default position, which most of it is a bunch of bunk, but he'll have an open mind and listen to people. I think that’s what he’s saying. FoxNews What's in the news now is Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’.TheGuardian Objective3000 (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I made a change to include that he once called it a hoax invented by the Chinese, but I don't believe that mentioning his statement about "some connectivity" to be due weight. If people visit the linked article about the "scientific consensus on climate change", they will clearly see that it includes both that it is real and that it is caused by humans. It seems undue weight to mention one of his flip flops, considering that he has seemingly reverted to his previous position now (or at least, it looks like he'll be acting as if humans are not responsible). Also, Trump himself didn't say anything about politicized science—that was one of his advisors who talked about defunding NASA's Earth Science program. JasperTECH (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks JFG. Trump's positions, whether he flip flopped or not, are significant, got national attention, were reported by major sources and reflect his latest position. However, I wouldn't be basing any decision on whether to add anything simply on the basis that we might trim something later. Again, nothing should be removed for the sake of page length alone, and main articles and sub-articles commonly have a fair amount of informational overlap. Again, this is good and ties the narrative of the two articles together. A good number of FA presidential and other biographies of important people exceed pagelength guidelines, as mentioned above. The Climate change section is very short to begin with and adding these items would not effect its length in any capacity to speak of. JasperTech, undue weight in this case becomes an issue if we carry on at length about these things. Again, these positions are significant and qualify Trump's position. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"simplifying the tax code with lower rates"

I hesitate to bring up any editorial point about this article but the above does not parse. It's not such a howler that I feel the need to change it right now in this contentious article, but ummm... one of these things does not lead to the other, as they say on Sesame Street. I think the intended meaning is that he has proposed simplifying the tax code AND lowering tax rates. Just saying. Elinruby (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done As the guilty party for this grammatical horror show, I have gladly updated the sentence according to your suggestion. — JFG talk 14:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Elinruby (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Why was this reverted?

Why exactly was my addition reverted? It cites a reliable and neutral source, Politico, and it describes the political composition of Trump's cabinet so far and shows what people think about it. How is it an editorial, and how is it "inappropriate and UNDUE", as the reverting editor stated? Is there any way to improve it so it can be added? --1990'sguy (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion. It's subjective and undue weight. I don't think it should be included at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It would be relevant there. Also this article about the combined net worth of his cabinet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I added both. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Tax platform in lead section

In the lead section, I changed the sentence saying Trump's platform included "lowering tax rates" to "reducing taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals," which is more in line with the body of the article and the reliable sources. ThaiWanIII, can you please explain why you undid this contribution without an edit summary? Generally speaking you should always include edit summaries, especially for reverts, and especially especially in articles subject to discretionary sanctions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see you were already warned by an admit admin for this revert. My apologies for piling on. Please provide your explanation here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
No "admit" warned me about anythingThaiWanIII (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Not constructive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A 'platform' is a formalized or stated set of political goals. If the candidate or party does not say a thing, it is not part of their "platform" Sources can say the AFFECT of his platform is the reduction of "taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals" but that is not his platform... but that is not his "platform" because it is not a stated goal. I am going to change the lead to reflect that distinction. Should someone wish to add something along the lines of "...the affect of which would be to lower taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals" that would be fine. Here is his tax plan which says his goal is "Reduce taxes across-the-board" Marteau (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but that really puts us in a bind. The top line of that donaldjtrump.com page says Trump would "Reduce taxes across-the-board, especially for working and middle-income Americans who will receive a massive tax reduction," but the reliable sources say his plan would do no such thing. How do we convey this information neutrally--or at a minimum not mislead our readers--in the limited space of the lead section? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The gory details of Trump's campaign platform (aka campaign promises) is not really important for the biography article. It is historically interesting info, but was put into the intro-paragraphs because wikipedia suffers from recentism. It *does* make sense in the Trump'16 article (and subsidiaries thereof), of course, with as much gory detail as is needed to cover the exact promises made at various points, the analysis thereof, the evolving if any during the general election campaign versus the primaries and so on. My gut instinct is that we ought to cover the major campaign promises here in the biography, without too much emphasis on debunking every sentence... because in point of fact, what will matter is when the actual Super Duper Tax Legislation Act of 2017 finally passes, and then economists use econometrics to evaluate the actual consequences, and then pundits/historians compare the real-world outcomes to the campaign promises, and then either repubs are re-elected in 2020 or get beaten like a drum. So to answer your question, it is pretty much impossible to convey Trump-promised-this-then-somebody-said-that-about-it-then-Trump-made-this-slightly-different-promise as part of the biographical introduction. We should have a couple sentences about winning the repub-nom (endorsements&funding + debates&platform + primary&caucus&convention), then we should have a couple sentences about winning the general (unity&funding + debates&scandals + popvote&ecVotes), in a subsection. The rest of the gory details belong in other articles. Look at Barack Obama#Presidential_campaigns, how many sentences are devoted to debunking campaign'08 promises there? Zero. He only gets half a sentence of his ultra-major campaign promises ("rapidly ending the Iraq War, increasing energy independence, and reforming the health care system"). No debunking of failed promises in the subsection, no mention of campaign promises whatsoever in the lead of the biography! 42 words in the intro about the 2008 campaign: mentions he beat Hillary Clinton with delegates in the primaries and beat John McCain in general, no further details whatsoever. Same for Trump, someday -- eventually we will return closer to neutrality, and highlight the major issues Trump specifically emphasized (winning trade-deals, fixing immigration policy, theEconomy/jobs/taxes/nationalDebt/deregulation/etc, improving ethics in DC, ignoring political correctness... I'm not sure what the final list is but that is somewhat close) in a subsection. If and when some of the campaign promises become long-standing issues *during* his presidency, then they will get more weight in his biographical sketch here on wikipedia, as part of covering the presidential term. But trying to re-litigate the campaign itself, in the biographical article lead paragraphs, is counterproductive. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2016

Change his position on gay marriage to "Trump indicated he's "fine" with the high court's opinion legalizing same-sex marriage and called it "settled" http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/trump-gay-marriage-abortion-supreme-court/index.html. Currently there is an old statement, from when Trump was battling it out with Ted Cruz, and trying to keep the evangelical vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.5.2 (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This update, among others, is being considered in the #Working draft section below. — JFG talk 10:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up

Just a follow-up since my last section was archived. Trump's current signature can be found on a most recent document from November 2016 here. We need to use the current signature – regardless of whether or not you can read it or not. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 11:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

No we don't "need to". Your proposal was discussed and overwhelmingly rejected; there is no point is reviving it just weeks later. — JFG talk 12:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, they look about the same to me, at least by signature standards. The second one uses a fatter pen, and to my eye it seems a little less resolvable, but I don't see the importance one way or the other. Wnt (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree with JFG. Your previous thread had a fair amount of participation and was close to a SNOW fail. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree with JFG and Mandruss. Have you found a policy that says "current" = better? In most scholarly work, the currency of a source is no more important than its authoritativeness or its accuracy and verifiability. Also important: How helpful to the reader is the cited information? --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Edit to opening paragraph regarding Trump's election

Propose the following changes to the opening:

ORIGINAL TEXT PROPOSED Text

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by earning a majority of the Electoral College, while Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton received a larger share of the nationwide popular vote.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by winning a majority of the Electoral College, while Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton received over 2.5 million more votes.

Rationale for change.

1. WP:Concise. Sentence is shorter and also provides the reader with more context.

2. The context here is important and widely commented on by WP:RS. See the Boston's Globe A legitimacy crisis for our democracy, Hillary Clinton's lead over Donald Trump in popular vote passes 2.5 million, etc. This is essential context because this large of a gap between who is taking power and the amount of votes received by that person is extremely rare and cuts to the legitimacy of that person taking power. To me, this seems like needed context that could be inserted in a concise way and might help a reader outside of the US better understand Donald Trump and his upcoming Presidency.Casprings (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning the popular vote delta as proposed. One style change that I would recommend would be to change "earning" to "winning".- MrX 17:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Done. Casprings (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This is good. It manages to be both concise and more informative.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this reads better. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. This is Donald Trump's biography page. "How much he lost the popular vote by" is not important enough, in his biography, to put in the lede, although it should be in the Election Results section and in the various Election articles. The lede here needs only to note the historic fact that he won the presidency while his opponent got more nationwide popular votes. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In any case, the proposed text would need to say "nationwide popular votes". "More votes" by itself is ambiguous to the point of being confusing. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Done.Casprings (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – If we start quoting numbers in the lead, why not mention the electoral college margin of 306 vs 232? Or Trump winning 30 states vs Clinton's 20? Imagine the text: Trump won a whopping 50% more states than his opponent, a much wider margin than Barack Obama's two terms. The list goes on. Any number sounds immediately partisan; better keep stats out of the lead. — JFG talk 23:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposal, but I would remove "nationwide" from the original text as it's superfluous. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Update While we debate, the sentence has been replaced by these two sentences: "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by obtaining the required majority of Electoral College votes. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who lost the election to Trump, received a larger share of the nationwide popular vote." That's actually pretty good. MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The magnitude of the gap is only meaningful if we know how many votes were cast in total. I do not see either why we should mention the opponent's name in the lead. TFD (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Οppose per JFG and TFD. This article is about the life of Donald Trump, it is not about Hillary or the election. Athenean (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose While we debate, I think the proposal got put in and then overwritten already OBE maybe moot, but for the record ... make it he won while having fewer popular votes -- it's his article so phrase it as a statement of Trump, not a Hillary statement. The details about numbers and such should be in the election article, not here. Markbassett (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose — The details of numbers should not be here.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose No need for any numbers here.--Polmandc (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Its better now. I don't know why "Trump won the presidential election by earning a majority of the electoral college" has to be there when earned is not common or necessary. Instead, by getting, gaining, or obtaining a majority of the electoral college seems better to me, and not bias somehow. YahwehSaves (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

New section in transition (Taiwan and conflicts of interest)

I would suggest two major topics need to be added to the transition section. I would draft them myself, but I am away from a computer.

1. A subsection needs to be added about him talking to the President of Taiwan. This is a huge break with US policy. We should add this to the lede, as this is very historical.

2. A section on his ongoing conflicts of interest.

Casprings (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree on both. A single phone call is not lede worthy (if he does end up changing US policy in the long run that is another matter), and the conflict of interest is as you say, ongoing, and thus not ready for wikipedia per WP:NOTNEWS. Athenean (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's wait a bit, shall we? This story is only a couple hours old. Perhaps it may become lead-worthy... after all, Obama going against decades of policy regarding Cuba is in his lead section, so there is precedent. Marteau (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree: wait.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
He just broke a 40 year tight rope of us policy regarding Tawain and China. It's lede worthy and more historically significant then anything in the article. What happens in his presidency might push it out. But at this point, nothing he has done is more important.Casprings (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I would add that there looks to be a conflict of interest here as the Trump organization apprears to be trying to expand in Tawain. You also have a conflict of interest. Something that risks wars, both real and trade, with a conflict of interest is historically huge.Casprings (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
What we know so far is he accepted a phone call, and that pundits are concerned. That is hardly lead worthy. Marteau (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I would say that more than pundits are concerned. But, it's still not lead-worthy. Objective3000 (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
More like people with some knowledge of US-China relations over Taiwan. We know that China has gave the US a formal complaint. https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d Casprings (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's wait and see how the story develops. Is it "a huge change in a 40-year policy", or a simple error of judgment - accepting a congratulatory call (note that she called him, he did not call her) without realizing its implications? Will China make a huge deal out of it or brush it off? At this point we don't know how important this is going to turn out to be. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: China hasn't called it a "huge" change in policy, nor has Trump. Also, it turns out that he asked her to call him. Also, it may not be wise to describe anything Trump says or does as an "error in judgment". This is perhaps the ultimate take-home lesson from the Incident of 11/8. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, this escalates it: China has filed an official protest. However the Chinese foreign minister said it was "just a small trick" by Taiwan that he believes will not change U.S. policy. Meanwhile Trump has shrugged it off. This needs to be covered somewhere, but maybe not in this BLP article. It would require an UNDUE amount of detail. Definitely in the transition article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It isn't in the Transition article, and in fact none of the newsworthy incidents during this transition period are included there. It just seems to be about planning for the new administration. Anyone have any idea where this important story COULD be placed? --MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I have a pretty good hunch that it should be placed in /dev/null because we are WP:NOTNEWS. Haven't we learned a lesson during this campaign that we should refrain from documenting every Trumpian tweet and every gasp from pundits? WP:FART comes to mind, if that were not a serious subject… — JFG talk 22:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I think we're going to have to be disciplined about making sure these controversies have some retrospective historical weight (actual, not media-hyped) before placing then in this article. I suggest starting a WP:SPINOFF article: Controversies of Donald Trump's Presidency, and then only including a summary of the major controversies here after they are shown to have significant impact and sustained coverage in the media.- MrX 13:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Above I suggested it wasn't lead-worthy and stay with that opinion. But, the NYTimes has over a page on this today. It's likely to end up somewhere in WP. Objective3000 (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned, rather this was a result of him being unprepared and his staff not ready for prime time or if this is a shift in policy, it is by far the most historic thing to happen during his transition.Casprings (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
By historic, I assume you mean unprecedented. Only time will tell if it's historic. It may turn into a big deal in our relations with China, or it may just be one in series of foreign relations gaffes soon to unfold.- MrX 13:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
And whichever way it turns out, there will be a cabal of editors saying "No, we shouldn't cover this, it's not newsworthy", or "it's too newsworthy and WP:NOTNEWS", or some variation on "Nothing possibly critical of Trump is allowed!" BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This really is not useful. And, I don't remember a bunch of claims of Nothing possibly critical of Trump is allowed. Objective3000 (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
No? Look harder. We've had RfCs to keep out mention of then upcoming court cases! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
If you have a specific case, talk about it in a section on that case. Making a broad-based prediction and complaint of future poor behavior is not useful. Objective3000 (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


Hillary Clinton won the popular vote should not be in the lead

The US presidential election is determined by electoral votes. Nationwide popular vote is just as irrelevant as the number of counties won. It is an interesting trivia, but it should not be in the lead, it should be in the subsection. Putting it in the lead seems to create a bias towards Trump's legitimacy in winning the general election.

69.166.118.152 (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Nationwide popular vote does not determine the winner. It might give Hillary some comfort to know she had more people voting for her than for Trump, but she still lost the election and that's all that matters in the end. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The words "mandate" and "landslide" have both been used to characterize the election. The popular vote does not suggest illegitimacy to the Trump win. But, it does suggest the illegitimacy of claims of a mandate or landslide. Objective3000 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Winning the election through the electoral college while losing the popular vote is a striking phenomenon, and has happened in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. By no means does it suggest illegitimacy of Trump's victory, and even if it did, that is not our role as an encyclopaedia to determine whether facts make results of elections legitimate. The simple truth that losing the popular vote while winning the election happened this year should by its inherent value elevate it to lede-status. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 19:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
You are both wrong. This is very relevant to the news of the day and will be for years to come, and if you actually live in the United States, you should realize it. This is the largest popular vote win for a candidate who lost the Electoral College in the history of the United States, so it certainly is not insignificant. Dustin (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
For balance, I think it's OK to mention that Clinton won a plurality of the nationwide popular vote in the lead, but not OK to dwell on vote margins or historical precedents. The section about the general election covers it all. — JFG talk 21:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It is unknown how many illegal Mexicans voted in the general election. It is correct Hillary had millions more popular votes. It is not correct all of her votes are from American citizens. Indeed, millions of her votes could be from illegal Mexicans, considering how many illegal Mexicans there are in the US. Hillary winning the popular vote does not in any way, shape, or form make Donald's win any less legitimate because 1) the nationwide popular vote does not determine the winner and 2) it is unknown at this point how many of those votes came from illegal Mexicans. Donald Trump thinks millions of these votes are from illegals. http://time.com/4582868/donald-trump-people-illegally-voted-election/

69.166.118.152 (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The claims that millions of illegal immigrants voted, aside from certainly being false, are completely unsubstantiated. Dustin (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
This disgusting edit should be removed. Objective3000 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
We could possibly include something about Donald Trump making another false bogus claim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
There are lots of sore losers, but it's rare to see a sore winner. See "Thin skinned" above. (And no, the disgusting edit should not be removed. It doesn't violate any WP policies as far as I can see.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Melanie, the sore winners, sore losers concept also came to mind. But, I disagree that this is not a WP vio. If the editor suggested that the accusation, with no evidence, be added as a claim by another, that would be one thing. But, he, himself, suggested that there was a crime committed by a racial group without an iota of evidence. And, he has added this claim on at least one other article. This smacks of racism. Objective3000 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
It's probably best just to ignore'em after saying "no".Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Point. Thanks. Objective3000 (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It is historic to lose the popular vote and win the presidency. However, it is also notable because trump is addressing it and claiming large scale voter fraud. This is historic for US politics, given how widespread the fraud would have to be.Casprings (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, if this were to be included, it would be a negative for Trump as it would point out his penchant for making claims without evidence, at times based on racial/cultural aspects. But, I still don’t think it should be included as there are so many examples of his reactionary tweets. Simply can’t include them all. We need to see which ones gain traction. Objective3000 (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I note that you have repeatedly made the assertion that Trump has included Mexican in his tweets about voter fraud. He did not, and illegal immigrant is not a nationality, race or ethnic group.173.66.18.9 (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

She did not "win" the popular vote. The popular vote was not a contest... there was nothing to "win" there. She got more votes than the other three notable candidates, it is true, but she did not obtain a majority; she obtained a plurality. I support mentioning this in the lead, that she achieved a plurality, but saying she "won" the popular vote is simply incorrect. Also, the presidential vote requires a majority. If, for example, Trump had obtained not a majority of the potential electoral vote, but instead simply a plurality, he would not have "won"... the electoral vote requires a majority. Marteau (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I 100% agree with this, putting Hillary's popular vote plurality in the forefront does NOT pertain to Donald Trump the person. Put it under a subcategory NOT in the introduction of Mr. Trump's Wikipedia article. Yeah and Illegals =/= Mexicans guys. User:Archer Rafferty —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"The simple truth that [it] happened this year should by its inherent value elevate it to lede-status." ... "This is very relevant to the news of the day and will be for years to come, and ... you should realize it." ... "It is historic ... It is also notable."
I nonetheless call upon all citizens of English Wikipedia to unite in heeding WP:BALASP:
Balancing aspects. An article should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its weight in the existing body of reliable sources on the subject [Trump]. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that are in the news. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The infamous "Grab them by the pussy" thing used to be in the lead. Thankfully it no longer is. Hopefully BLP will be adhered to. Doc talk 10:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The results of the election, which included Clinton winning the majority of the votes and Trump securing a majority in the electoral college, is highly notable and also of great historic importance (winning the presidency without winning the popular vote is very rare, losing the popular vote by such a margin is even more rare). Clearly Clinton winning the popular vote needs to be there. --Tataral (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't support this logic. Hillary is also the first female candidate to lose a general election. Not in the lede. Hillary is the first candidate to win a major party's nomination while embattled with two FBI criminal investigations, with a third one completed while serving as FLOTUS. Not in the lede. Hillary is the first candidate to be soundly defeated in the general election, and not give a concession speech to her supporters the night of the election. Not in the lede. See the problem, here? Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree. There is a difference between notability and relevance to a specific article. In this particular article, at least at this time, although I suppose that could change, I cannot see any reason to mention in the lede the rather picky detail that Clinton got .2% more national popular vote than Trump. Particularly given the fact that one state Clinton carried, with 62%-33% support, California, has 10% of the population of the country, and those numbers themselves basically translate as 6% of the national vote to 3% of the national popular vote, mentioning that in the lede of this biography article, at least at this time, seems to be to be giving that one factoid grossly excessive weight. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand your point re California. CA counts too. Indeed, what appears to be arbitrary lines drawn about the U.S. does have an effect. Objective3000 (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
In one single state, California, Hillary's margin of victory was 15 times greater than her national margin of victory. Yes, Californians count too, but they only count for the purposes of a national election as a single state. I regret to say that if there is at least to my eyes any real "arbitrariness" here, it is the arbitrary irrational insistence that, in an article which is a biography of rather older person who has won an election but has not even assumed office yet, material which might strike some as trivia regarding an election which is, even at this point, only a rather minor subject as a distinct matter in that individual's biography, is so important that it must be included in the lede. It honestly seems to me that the motivator here is more likely partisanship of those individuals who, for whatever reason, preferred Clinton over Trump and an attempt to use this biographical article as a bit of a WP:SOAPBOX to support their personal views about the "legitimacy" of a national election by raising a point which is at best of even minor importance in the matter of the election itself.
It is also probably worth noting that the popular vote is and always has been unto itself largely irrelevant in presidential elections, at least in part based on the long-established fact of the differing sizes of the populations of the states. So far as I can see the issue here is about a matter which is fundamentally not at all directly relevant to the factors determining the outcome of a election, which has so far as I can tell never been considered particularly important in any of the prior elections. The argument goes on that it is overwhelming important in this case that it must be mentioned in the lede of a person whose life (for better or worse) has had a huge number of significant events and issues which could also be argued to be significant enough for inclusion in the lede, possibly on more solid reasons. Such actions could be easily seen as indicating a lack of understanding of the factors which determine how US presidential elections are decided or less interest in those factors than in perhaps promoting some rather spurious claim of "victory" of a sort for the loser of that election. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Well said, John Carter, there is a reason this nation is called the United States of America, not the American Federation (compare with elections in the Russian Federation which adopted a French-inspired Presidential nationwide popular vote with bicameral representation of federal territories similar to the US Congress). I wasn't aware the discrepancy was so large in California. It effectively sways the national vote tally all by itself. But look at the margin in DC: 92% for Clinton, quite an outlier there… — JFG talk 14:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact that she won over 2.5 million more votes seems extremely relevant to the election. I would suggest we just quantify it and state that. Something like "Trump won the EC, despite the fact Clinton received over 2.5 million more nationwide votes." Casprings (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That you advocate quantifying the popular vote, but not the electoral vote, is peculiar. Nonetheless, giving exact figures may be appropriate in the body of the article, but certainly not in the lead. Marteau (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the extant Bill Clinton article does not mention in the lede that he is the only 2-term president in history who did not receive a full 50% vote either time. That particular factoid has been discussed rather regularly for years regarding his presidency. That being the case, the argument for inclusion of this at least at this time less significant factoid in this case seems to be weak. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

When he was owner of New Jersey Generals

Other ventures Sports events "In 1983, Trump's New Jersey Generals became a charter member of the new United States Football League (USFL). " He did own the team until after the 1983 USFL season. Walter Duncan? from Oklahoma was the owner of the Generals during the 1983 season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.80.163 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tidbit. Do you happen to have a published source documenting this? — JFG talk 22:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I found this.[1] Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Markazi, Arash (14 July 2015). "5 things about Donald Trump's USFL adventure". ESPN.com. Retrieved 4 December 2016.

[14] [15] Sept 22, 1983 after the season — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.80.163 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

The removal of the section on foreign policy change is very arbitrary and biased as it prevents the readers from forming the right perspective on the topic, the sources cited are reliable and contain appropriate citations relevant to the content. If somebody disagrees, he will have to prove that the sources are unreliable and that the quotes provided are not genuine. --Reollun (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of your edits (I haven't looked in detail), the appropriate article would be Political positions of Donald Trump, soon to be split into three pages including Foreign policy of Donald Trump. — JFG talk 02:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed the material. Here it is:
During a 'Thank You' rally in Cincinnati, Ohio, Trump announced a new approach to foreign policy, vowing to destroy ISIS, but also stating that the US will stop 'looking to topple foreign regimes and overthrow governments'
In fact, it is not a "new approach" to want to destroy ISIS, and it has long been Trump's ambition to do so. It also not new to not look to topple foreign regimes and overthrow governments.
As to source reliability, I see no evidence that trendingissue.com is a reliable source at all. There's no indication that they are under editorial control, or that they have established a reputation for fact checking. It has as much credibility as a personal blog as far as I can tell. Washington Examiner is a questionable source (see this and these). It certainly is not a source that should be relied on for material in a prominent biography (see WP:BLPSOURCES). The CBS New source does not support the material.- MrX 02:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I agree with JFG. As for the sources, that can be easily remedied, if the two sources aren't reliable, there are other sources which support the content. The wording can also be changed, but I don't see why not include his position on this particular issue. The statement he gave is very relevant and I think it should be included in some of the future sections regarding Trump's foreign policy.

--Reollun (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If there is something out there in reliable sources that say he has devised a policy with some substance behind it, then I'm all for including it in the political positions article. - MrX 03:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
That's beside the point. I was talking specifically about his statement on foreign policy changes. I have not heard any valid reason why not include it in the article. --Reollun (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton did not win the popular vote. She had more popular vote.

None of the candidates ever sought to have the most popular vote. The popular vote is not a criterion for winning the election. Therefore, the sentence in the lead "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by earning more Electoral College votes than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote." should be changed to "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by earning more Electoral College votes than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who had more popular vote."

216.165.201.137 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"Won the popular vote" is a quite common way to say it. Here is just one of many readily available using Google Search. In contrast, nobody says "had more popular vote". This has been exhaustively discussed on this page and the current language represents the consensus. The article does not state or imply that the popular vote tally has any bearing on the outcome of the election. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I think something like received a larger share of the popular vote would be both more accurate and using common phrasing. Do you agree? The WordsmithTalk to me 22:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I get what both you and Mandruss are saying, and I wouldn't take issue with either variant. I don't really know how you quantify which variant is more common, however. Dustin (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Both being equally accurate, both being widely used, I see no reason to use the longer choice. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
While I agree with Mandruss, this does seem to relate to a point several supporters of Clinton point out, and the likelihood of the argument continuing seems to me unfortunately good. Maybe "received more popular votes" might be acceptable? John Carter (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we should say "won the nationwide popular vote" or "earned most votes nationwide"? This would clarify the nationwide popular vote "winner" vs the popular vote winner by state who takes all state electors. Particularly important to distinguish for non-US readers who may be arguably puzzled at the Electoral College system and won't necessarily go read the dedicated article. — JFG talk 22:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
It's outside this article's scope to educate readers about the U.S. electoral system. That's why we have wikilinks; if a reader chooses not to follow them, they are actively opting to remain ignorant. We should say what our sources say. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Surely adding "nationwide" doesn't hurt and doesn't contradict the sources, does it? — JFG talk 22:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Just seems superfluous, and I believe in avoiding superfluous words as a matter of encyclopedic principle. "It doesn't hurt" is never a good reason to include something; every word needs to earn its keep. One couldn't interpret "Clinton won the popular vote" as referring to the electoral vote without being contradicted by the fact that Trump is the person headed for the White House. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are plenty of sources which say she "won" the popular vote. Just as there are plenty of sources which say that "Clock Boy" "built" a clock, but we don't say that in our article, but instead we more precisely say he "reassembled the parts of a digital clock". We should, whenever possible, use the language with precision, and it is completely imprecise to say she "won" anything. "Winning" a thing requires a contest and there was no contest for achieving the most of the popular vote. I would favor saying she "achieved a plurality of the popular vote". Marteau (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
If you're a stickler for precise language, surely you won't mind me referring to the English dictionary. Of the five main definitions for "win", Merriam-Webster says one has anything to do with a contest.[16] The other four are alternative definitions of "win". Should we use the dictionary or defer to your superior knowledge of the English language? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Surely you won't mind me pointing out that only one of those definitions applies in the given context, namely, the one with the word "contest" in it. Marteau (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Many, many reliable sources agree that definitions 1 and 5 apply in this context. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote" is not appropriate. It's not something you "win". How about something like "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 by earning a majority of Electoral College votes, although Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton received a larger share of the popular vote"? --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. You might include volume, when it's known. Objective3000 (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
👍 Like, but no stats in lead please. — JFG talk 02:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

A sentence in the lead states "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by earning more Electoral College votes than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote."

A win is only mandated by having a majority. In both the primaries and the general election, a candidate must have a majority of delegates or electors to win.

Hillary Clinton has under 50% of the national popular vote. She has plurality, but not majority. Even under a pure national popular vote system like in Russia and Ukraine, she does not win because she does not have majority.

So I'm not sure what is meant by she won the popular vote when clearly this is not the case.

216.165.201.137 (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed at significant length above, actually, in possibly more than one section. However, I don't remember seeing the plurality/majority issue you mention here being specifically mentioned before in this context, and it is probably worth considering as well. I think the basic argument to date has been that (more or less) the phrasing duplicates that of the popular press which have frequently discussed the issue, and it isn't unreasonable for us to use the most commonly used phrasing used by other media, even if that phrasing is itself open to very serious questions regarding accuracy. John Carter (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I think "won the popular vote" is clumsy. She won more votes, a plurality of votes or 60+ million votes. TFD (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I changed it to most popular votes. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I propose changing "most popular votes" to "more popular votes" since the context is clear in comparing these two persons and no one else. Most is too ambiguous and it is not clear if most means plurality as in this case or majority. 216.165.201.137 (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree and changed it to "more". --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
"won the popular vote" seems the predominant phrasing, and technically correct -- and also a bit false since I note that it's ironic to see "won" on the one who lost, and also that it is mentioned by Michael Moore here as a political ploy rather than a point of true concern or proposals underway. Markbassett (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it is completely undue and POV in Trump's lede. It might make sense in HRC's article, but not here. The fact is that DJT won. End of the story.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It is only "technically correct" with qualification, and then only if the act of not attaining a majority is considered a "win". Completely pertinent is the fact that a majority is needed for a victory in electoral vote. If it were a three way electoral race and if Trump had, instead, gotten less than 50% of the electoral vote, he could not have been said to have "won" the electoral vote and the decision would go to congress. Marteau (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of the wording I proposed above: "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 by earning a majority of Electoral College votes, although Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton received a larger share of the popular vote" ? Eliminates "won" which seems incorrect. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think this is relevant/due in Trump's lede? This is not even Trump's campaign article.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I have made the change, let's see if it sticks… @Zigzig20s: It's relevant because it's being reported a lot in relation to the election. Omitting it would only raise more questions from readers. But we shouldn't dwell on it, just report sober facts. And there's only one winner, no matter how loud the loser's supporters scream "but she would have won if the rules were different". — JFG talk 07:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it is totally undue in the lede of this article--which is about his entire life, not the campaign. HRC does not define his entire life; she is a footnote in his life. This could be included in the lede of the campaign article, but not here.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree there's a bit of recentism involved in the current consensus to keep this information (soberly) in the lead. This may fade out in a few months (or not, see George W. Bush), just like the pussy-grabbing thingie thankfully vanished a couple weeks after the vote. Isn't it fun that the Wikipedia consensus process has been strongly affirming that this particular controversy was just as lede-worthy in October as the "popular vote win" is now? In the same vein, nobody is complaining about limiting the TOC level any longer… Could this demand have had anything to do with promoting the section on sexual misconduct allegations? No neutral editor would ever think so! — JFG talk 14:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Suggest changing "Clinton won the popular vote" to instead "Clinton earned more popular votes" which keeps the wordcount low, but eliminates the technical inaccuracy of 'winning' something not actually being directly contested. 'Earning' terminology is probably not found in tons of sources, but here are some.[17][18] And yes, I'm aware there are tons and TONS of perfectly fine sources that use the looser terminology, and say that politician X 'won' the popvote but lost the ecVote. Wikipedia ought to strive for accuracy, and saying 'earned' rather than 'won' will confuse nobody amongst the readership, whilst achieving that accuracy. As for the idea that Clinton's relative popvote performance should be elided, I would argue for keeping it here, in the biography -- it speaks to the relative unpopularity (historically speaking) of both major-party candidates up for election -- one of the defining features of this election cycle, is that both of the major-party candidates had extremely poor favorability (according to polling data (data which ain't necessarily as accurate as one might wish albeit!), and that lack of favorability is reflected in the relatively high numbers for third-parties, but also in the popvote/ecVote distinction. If it turns out to matter, in a historical sense, that Clinton got more popvotes, it will be during the 2018 midterms, when the larger dem-party mindshare earned in this cycle may result in significant movement in the House elections (the Senate map is almost guaranteed to give the repub-party some gains in 2018 however). Until then, the election-event itself certainly matters to the biographical subject here, and there is certainly plenty of coverage about Trump winning, yet the bulk of it almost without exception mentions that Trump-won-EC-but-Hillary-was-ahead-in-popvote, so in describing this major event in Trump's life, we should keep the caveat. For accuracy, though, I suggest we wikilink Trump's 'win' to the electoral college article, and wikilink Clinton's 'earned' (NOT 'won') to the criticism section of the electoral college article. I think parenthisizing the Clinton result, COULD be proper, but eliding it would be wrong -- the election was somewhat close, and the popvote-vs-ecVote difference gives the readership a hint about why. It belongs in the first or two, because winning the presidency is a defining moment of Trump's biography; whether the popvote-caveat will stay in the early bit, or will gradually fade, depends on what happens in the 2018 and 2020 elections. Until then, sources add the caveat, and we should also, just with a bit more accuracy. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Do the sources say "Clinton won the popular vote"? If so, then that's what we use. If they say "Clinton earned the majority of the popular vote" or something like that, then that's what we use. I think it's "win".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
She did not get a majority of the popular vote. She got 48 point something percent, if I'm not mistaken. 38.121.94.148 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and the "won" terminology is more general. Likewise, sources will say "Gore won the popular vote" or "candidates who lost the election but won the popular vote" etc. So it's perfectly fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Correct, saying that Clinton 'won' the popvote is more generic, because the term is more ambiguous. Correct, many many sources use the ambiguous terminology. I'm arguing that this is a special case, where what the sources say is objectively incorrect in an encyclopedic sense; we can use a variation of 'earned' (rather than the commonplace but subtly flawed 'won'), since 'earned' is also used by solid sources; it is not-quite-as-generic, which makes is more accurate. See also, the discussion further down the page, where the Trump-'earned'-the-most-ecVotes-but-Clinton-'received'-more-popvotes version is being actively discussed. Although wikipedia wasn't really around in the immediate aftermath of the Bush v Gore election, didn't they have some kind of similar discussion at that article? Here is the current language: "...Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes... more than the required 270 electoral votes to win the Electoral College, and defeat Democratic candidate Al Gore, who received 266 electoral votes..." Only Bush is described as 'winner/win' and Gore is described as 'received'. You could loosely say that Gore 'won' 48.84% of the certified FL popvote, and that nationally Gore 'won' 266 ecVotes, but wikipedia does not say those things because the terminology is too loose. Now in fairness, wikipedia DOES say in the USPE, 2000 article that "...the eventual winner failed to win the popular vote..." as opposed to the slightly more wordy but slightly more correct "...the eventual winner failed to get the most popular votes..." But in the most relevant biographical article wikipedia currently says "... elected president in 2000 after a close and controversial election against Al Gore, becoming the fourth president to be elected while receiving fewer popular votes nationwide." Which says elected/received, rather than won/earned, but definitely does not use the flawed won/'won' imprecise language that the paparazzi typically utilize. The argument here is partly about whether or not wikipedia ought to use imprecise language, merely because most of the sources use that imprecise language, or if wikipedia can use slightly-more-precise language of received/earned/whatever, for the candidate that was not the winner-of-the-actual-election. There is no argument about what the sources say, the vast majority of them use the flawed metaphor of 'winning' to describe something for which there is no actual prize (whereas the 'earning' metaphor is correct in that earning support/mindshare/popvotes DOES matter in future cycles even though it does NOT actually win you any prize this cycle); thus, the argument is about whether the sources are implying something inaccurately, and whether wikipedia can do better, per pillars one and two, and if you insist also five. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
MelanieN, JFG - that phrasing didn't last long after "made the change, let's see if it sticks", and I thinkt 47.222 has some good points above on the use of 'won' and that the precedent in phrasing for the Bush case. (Older cases didn't mention it at all in lead, perhaps it just was not prominent.) I'll also suggest that the phrasing and adding numbers is getting a bit WP:OFFTOPIC -- going into Clinton or numbers of votes should be in the election article not the Trump article. (Sniffs a bit like WP:SOAPBOX here, as already mentioned by others in this TALK.), What do you think of following more to the Bush language "He was elected president after a close and controversial (strongly negative?) election, becoming the fifth president to be elected while receiving fewer popular votes nationwide than an opponent."  ? Markbassett (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Markbassett: Coincidentally I just pushed a general copyedit of the lead section the very minute you posted this comment. To your points:
  • I agree that we shouldn't say that Hillary Clinton "won" anything; there is no second prize and Wikipedia is not in the business of catering to the feelings of disappointed citizens.
  • Mentioning her larger share of the nationwide vote is notable and fair. Mentioning any numbers is undue because this is just Donald Trump's biography and numbers can go both ways (see my earlier remark on stats).
  • The comparison with Bush vs Gore has its limits: yes in both cases the winning candidate received fewer votes nationwide, but no 2016 was not a closely contested election (306 to 232 electors vs 271 to 266, a margin of 74 EV vs only 5). Coincidentally the winner carried 30 states vs 20 in both elections.
As part of my general copyedit, I restored the factual wording originally proposed by The Wordsmith and which looks consensual enough given this discussion: although Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton received a larger share of the nationwide popular vote. If there is constructive opposition to it (not just drive-by WP:RGW edits), we could settle the issue with an RfC, although I hope it won't be necessary. An alternate formulation could be although he received fewer popular votes nationwide than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. — JFG talk 08:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Alternate wording seems to hold for now. Perhaps because it is phrased in active voice with Trump as subject, which fits better within his biography. Here's hoping that's settled… — JFG talk 22:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

pro Hillary Clinton bias and incorrectness in the lead

Point 1: When voters vote in the general election in the US, they do not vote for the presidential candidates, as in most countries of the world. Instead, they vote for the electors of their states / DC. This is explicitly stated in the Constitution. No one in the US ever votes for candidates. Only the electors are voted on. It is incorrect to state Hillary Clinton got 65 million popular votes. Every candidate got exactly 0 popular votes.

I quote. When the voters in each state cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to select their state's Electors.

source: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html

I quote. Each presidential elector shall execute and file with the secretary of state a pledge that, as an elector, he or she will vote for the candidates nominated by that party. The names of presidential electors shall not appear on the ballots. The votes cast for candidates for president and vice president of each political party shall be counted for the candidates for presidential electors of that political party…

source: http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.56.320

Point 2: We must ask, what is the purpose of mentioning Hillary Clinton having more popular vote in the lead? In my opinion it is nothing other than a pathetic attempt to illegitimize Donald Trump's election win.

Point 3: Hillary Clinton is the only person other than Donald Trump mentioned in the lead. This is extremely bizarre and out of place. Not even Donald Trump's parents and family members are mentioned in the lead. Any person or trivia that is not about Donald Trump himself should not be in the lead and should be in the subsections.

Furthermore, for the same reasons above, I propose George W Bush's wiki page modified to delete the incorrect statement that Gore had more popular vote than Bush did in the lead.

38.121.94.148 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not what popular vote means. By definition, Gore received more votes ("popular" votes) than Bush, and the same likewise applies to Clinton vs. Trump but to a much greater extent. Dustin (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
As my sources explain, the Democratic electors got more popular votes than the Republican electors did. Both Gore and Bush got exactly 0 popular votes. 38.121.94.148 (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
No, according to reliable sources Clinton got X>0 popular votes, and Trump got Y>0 popular votes. Arguing semantics, or what have you, is covered under the Wikipedia policy of no original research.
We don't ask "what is the purpose". We only ask "is it covered in reliable sources".
The fact that Clinton is mentioned in the lede might have something to do with some election that Trump might have just participated in.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
"electoral college. The body of electors chosen from each state to formally elect the U.S. President and Vice President by casting votes based on the popular vote." (Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed.)
So: Trump won the popular vote in 30¼ states, lost the popular vote in 19¾ states, and won the electoral vote. Clinton won the popular vote in 19¾ states, lost the popular vote in 30¼ states, and lost the electoral vote. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_37&oldid=1136337856"