This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we please archive some of this page.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 05:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Five days sounds about right. SW3 5DL ( talk) 00:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
</sarcasm>
For what it's worth, I think 7 days is a short as it should be, but I am totally in favor of manually archiving closed discussions 24 hours after they've been concluded. This is a highly trafficked talk page that is much longer than what is typical, and it gets quite unwieldy sometimes. --
Scjessey (
talk) 13:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Because arbitrary breaks are de rigueur in long, pointless discussions and I didn't want this one to lose out. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
During the
recent discussion about the lead sentence, the word "former" was
added in front of "television personality" by
MelanieN upon a suggestion by
Scjessey, however no other participant commented at the time. Now that the wider discussion has reached consensus about the descriptors of Trump's lifetime activities and their ordering, I posit that "former" is wholly unnecessary. First, if we want to be that precise, we would need to say "former businessman" as well as "former television personality". Second, we don't usually say in a biography that Mr. X is a "former mechanic", "former lawyer" or "former activist"; he is simply a "mechanic", "lawyer" or "activist". We occasionally say people are "retired", but that wouldn't make sense here. Therefore I move that we remove "former" from the lead sentence, so that it reads Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the President-elect of the United States.
Please indicate your preference in the poll below. —
JFG
talk 16:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
He is a current executive producer of Celeb Apprentice and appears in the credits. And who's to say he won't be a contestant on reality TV shows later on? 204.197.181.138 ( talk) 19:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Docolusanya ( talk) 16:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
QT# HEs prez now
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The moment he says "So help me god", go to
my sandbox and copy the text, and paste everything EXCEPT the protection template and the categories. ∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
16:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Seeing that Mr. Trump refers to himself as Donald J. Trump, both on his Twitter account and campaign website, shouldn't this article accurately reflect how he refers to himself? Shouldn't the name of this article be Donald J. Trump? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsam ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given that it's black and white and low-resolution, and likely not the official Presidential portrait, should we wait until the official one/a high-quality color portrait comes out? MB298 ( talk) 19:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm agreeing this isn't the 'official portrait', but am wondering what it is and where it is from.
First, I notice it's related to the senate.gov, not whitehouse.gov or NARA as yet and not 'official' position portrait because he's not yet official. It's also not greatagain.gov or shareamerica.gov which would seem the more likely / authoritative sources for the president-elect camp. The senate website is about the inauguration process, and the image seems a photoshopped side item for the website from prior imagery. (At least when I do a yahoo search it seems to show a prior color image without a background of summertime whitehouse and flag in the background. So -- anyone know what the root image is from ?
Second, I'm noticing the filename is odd and not the one on their main page. The senate site shows a very similar but slightly different image here when you scroll down on their home page. So what webpage has this photo ?
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 00:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
See here : it's probably not the definitive official portrait, though. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 14:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't agree with the sudden insertion of the new image & the quick closure of the discussion. GoodDay ( talk) 17:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm just glad we have a professional and official photo. Once there is an official White House photo of him as President and not President-elect (like Obama's current infobox image), there shouldn't be a problem with replacing it. CatcherStorm talk 15:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the article has been fully protected. I've actually never seen an article in mainspace protected fully before, but that's besides the point. Question is, which admin will change "President-elect" to "45th President of the United States?" CatcherStorm talk 16:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am requesting that an administrator change "incoming president" at the top to "current president". CatcherStorm talk 17:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC) CatcherStorm talk 17:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Presidintial term: January 20, 2017 2605:6000:1525:81F9:7D6D:69DE:A1AF:D285 ( talk) 14:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I created a
sandbox if you want to make changes for when his inauguration takes place (changing all the dates and offices, etc.), When merging, make sure you keep the categories (I removed them per
WP:NOUSERCAT), and also keep the protection templates because a bot removed them, make an edit to the sandbox if you spot something. ∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
13:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
We need the President of the United States navbox content fixed. It should read January 20, 2017–present, not just January 20, 2017. GoodDay ( talk) 17:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the infobox, change "New York City" to " New York City, New York, U.S." under the "Born" section. Misterpither ( talk) 22:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. —
MartinZ02 (
talk) 23:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think that Queens, New York should be put in place after place of birth. Israeliano ( talk) 20:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Donald_Trump to See also. Thanks. Derntno ( talk) 18:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Done - Added to External links section per WP:LAYOUT.- Mr X 19:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Its terrible, doesnt look he has hair just a stupidly bad comb over.-- Simon19801 ( talk) 05:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this discussion: #The official portrait of the President-elect is out. is not a new consensus. For one thing, the portrait is not the official White House portrait, or nor is there any evidence that it's official anything. Second, consensus is not determined by one of the few participants in the discussion after only a few minutes. I'm disappointed to see several editors pointing to that discussion as justification for inserting a re-colored version of the inauguration program photo into the article while ignoring the bona fide consensus. I'm looking to Twitbookspacetube, Rick4512, Vjmlhds, RedBear2040 to explain these end runs around consensus.- Mr X 01:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
MrX The only editors who say such things are the ones consensus goes against. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I support in general the comments by Twitbookspacetube, Rick4512, Vjmlhds, RedBear2040, and Anythingyouwant, oppose in general the argument by MrX, support in particular his complaint about colorization, and nonetheless support using the colorized image OR grayscale image as opposed to the old image per talk page consensus. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 02:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
blatantly clear consensus- Saying it repeatedly, even with words like "blatantly" thrown in for enphasis, don't make it true. Carry on. ― Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Use File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg as the infobox image until the official White House portrait becomes available. (link) – Update 17 January 2017: official portrait released (link 2)seems blatantly clear to me. And the current photo is from an official source and used for an official event, how much more official does it need to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitbookspacetube ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I oppose the President-elect image of Trump. However, it will eventually be replaced during this week by a Presidential portrait of Trump. Therefore, I won't be losing any sleep over the current 'temporary' image :) GoodDay ( talk) 15:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here's what has been going on at the article:
1/19, 00:25, Cropped colorized version restored by RedBear2040" was wrong, I've corrected it. Also, your summary line comment "
(At this point the talk page tally was 8 support, 1 oppose)" is unclear and ambiguous since it implies voting between 2 different images, when the edit warring involved at least 3 images. Also, the consensus image throughout was made ambiguous/unclear by attempts to clarify it at Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs, so your generalized shaming is really not appropriate. -- IHTS ( talk) 10:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Just want to quickly point to precedent with Barack Obama in 2008/2009 before he was inaugurated and was President-elect. This verison is from December 31, 2008 (his official portrait was released on January 13 or 14, 2009) is the equivalent of what has so far been released of Donald Trump. Both of the photos are from the Joint Congressional Inauguration Committee's official program for the inauguration. Just wanted to make sure to include precedent. Calibrador ( talk) 05:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Let the record show that MelanieN has not provided a single compelling reason to support her draconian request for full page protection. Her irritation is over an absurd dispute regarding a photograph. Since MelanieN evidently doesn't take page protection seriously, there is no reason for anyone else to. This cannot stand. AllWeKnowAreTheFacts,Ma'am ( talk) 08:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
|
Independently of the arguments pro and contra the new picture, I feel that a 3-day lock provides a refreshing break to all of us valiant editors. How nice it is to envision sailing through the inauguration weekend without monitoring the Trump page constantly! — JFG talk 13:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a timing issue here. The protecting administrator chose to protect the page for three days. That will include the inauguration, at which point Trump will take the oath of office and we ought to change the article from "president-elect" to "president". We have three options.
I have filed a request at WP:DRN - please see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Donald_Trump Twitbookspacetube ( talk) 00:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
What is wrong with you people? We need this page locked, posthaste! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.136.141.60 ( talk) 03:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW — JFG talk 22:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump →
Donald J. Trump – He's now the 45th president of the United States. He calls himself Donald J. Trump, he took the oath as Donald J. Trump, and I think we should call the article Donald J. Trump.
SW3 5DL (
talk) 20:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Searching the archives, I can't find any mention of this story, which doesn't seem to lack either reliable sources or widespread reporting:
-- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
"n part due to his fame, Trump's run for president received an unprecedented amount of unpaid coverage from the media that elevated his standing in the Republican primaries."
We should absolutely mention clinton's pied piper strategy that absolutely backfired here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4201:9810:5489:3299:A6D1:A822 ( talk) 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Important not to violate WP:Original Research if the emails are used. Also, a source preferably more upstanding than The Daily Beast should be found, if possible. - Indy beetle ( talk) 00:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
2.5 Million votes less is an important fact and should be included-- Simon19801 ( talk) 05:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Should the article mention Trump's position on putting his business in a blind trust? [3] SW3 5DL ( talk) 19:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, he did bring it up at his press conference. It may take some untangling to figure out exactly what he said - aside from the fact that his two oldest sons will run the business, while he and Ivanka resign all roles. He will continue to have a financial stake in the business (a stake which has never been defined; I think it is possible that he is the SOLE owner since it is all reported through his personal tax returns.) [4] I'll do some more research and see what we can say. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Right, not a blind trust, just a trust. I think I have a decent paragraph which I will add to The Trump Organization as well as here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM discussion about trusts — JFG talk 16:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
That IP User above seems to have a God understanding of trusts. While it is easy for us regular users to like big words, like trusts, we should let experts speak and study their ideas first. Is a formal trust, like a Donald Trump Trust UA 1/18/2017 M Rosenfeld E Trump Ttes, being formed? Including retitling of assets? Unfortunately, the press often gets this (and medical stories) wrong because of lack of reporter knowledge. Let's here it from the IP and experts. Samswik ( talk) 16:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC) |
Would you agree that the addition made at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&diff=759481551&oldid=759472321 was reasonable? Twitbookspacetube ( talk) 13:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with MelanieN, give it 48 hours. WP:NOTNEWS and all. We could be having a scandal a day for the next four years for all we know, and not every one of them would merit inclusion. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I’m nearly always in favor of waiting a couple days before adding new, controversial info. This is no exception. OTOH, I wouldn’t argue against including some, careful, earlier mention in articles specifically about the election or Russia-U.S. relations. Objective3000 ( talk) 16:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
At least 48 hours. I wouldn't see the urgency even then, aside from the avoidance of uninformed accusations of suppression. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The above edit was perfectly fine. We can expect that some editors will vehemently oppose *ANY* mention of this situation in the lede, no matter how notable it is. I'm also unclear on what the "leak" is suppose to be. The media has had access to this report for months, since June at least. McCain got it and gave it to FBI in December. Etc. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with a 48-hour hold to let the details settle, but it seems almost certain that this must be included in some form. The narrative crafted by the Trump team is that nothing has been corroborated, but the BBC now says there are more sources. Also, news outlets and Wikipedia had no qualms about giving coverage to uncorroborated material from WikiLeaks about Hillary Clinton, so let's not have a double standard here. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The details of the allegations are going mainstream. Just yesterday I saw a headline reading "Meryl Streep Takes Aim at Trump"! -- Pete ( talk) 16:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
It's been more than 48 hours and this story is still a big thing, so that excuse is gone. To clarify, the proposed edit simply entails putting in a single sentence stating that Trump was briefed on the as yet unverified allegations, with no details of said allegations, and that trump has denied them. The consensus seems rather clear, but I would just like to make sure that I have read it right. Does the edit linked at the start of this section seem reasonable? Twitbookspacetube ( talk) 10:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Buzzfeed ran an article containing a document that alleges (Redacted). This has been picked up by a number of other sources, such as Cosmopolitan. How long should we wait, and what level of reliable source should we require, to cover these allegations? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 01:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It's front page is ny times and Washington post. Some key facts that should be included, including that the FBI sought a FISA warrant on Trump's campaign, but were denied until October. This is extremely significant. Casprings ( talk) 03:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Some of the specific allegations might be UNDUE per BLP, but the general story is all over the sources. [11], [12], [13], [14]. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Too soon, not enough corroboration. These are make allegations and most news outlets are treating them as rumors at the moment. Wait until we get solid, unequivocal confirmation. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
As an FYI Donald Trump "compromised" claims has been created. I originally tagged it as G10 when it was under another name that was about the claims not mentioned in RS. It's since been moved the the G10 contested by an editor other than the creator. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
We definitely shouldn't add anything about this until we get a very reliable source. A golden source, like the NYT or Washington Post. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 07:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Non useful edits. Keep in mind this is a BLP and receives heavy traffic. ― Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
It's clear that the whole Russia thing – not just this most recent information, but also Russia's interference in the election – needs to be mentioned in the lead of this article, per WP:LEAD ("The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"). Since he lost the election by 3 million votes but nevertheless was appointed president due to the odd political system of his country, his ties to Russia, Russia's election interference has completely dominated the conversation. Russia is the single most important thing that can be said about him after the election. -- Tataral ( talk) 12:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Since he lost the election by 3 million votes but nevertheless was appointed president". Some basic education for you: The Presidency is not "appointed" it is won; Trump won the election the only way it can/could be won (i.e. "Road to 270"); national popular vote is an interesting fact but beyond that has no bearing, it also cannot be "won"/"lost" since it is not a race/competition. IHTS ( talk) 14:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Non useful edits. Keep in mind this is a BLP and receives heavy traffic. Objective3000 ( talk) 13:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
These edits should probably be deleted. Besides I hate puns. Objective3000 ( talk) 13:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC) |
The Russians hacked into the DNC (and also into Republican sources, despite Trump's denial)... please be accurate and precise, MelanieN. Are you talking about agents of the Russian intelligence services, or are you talking about cracking-groups located in the landmass of Russia somewheres, who may or may not be 'linked' informally to governmental agencies? Are you talking about the high-level Trump campaign staffers and high-level RNC staffers, or are you talking about some Republican-party-leaning bloggers and some state-level campaign staffers? There is also the distinction between the intent to gather information for unspecified purposes (cracking groups) and an alleged intent to gather information to mess with the election for geopolitical purposes (intel agencies). Please see [15] which has a good overview of the nuances here. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 01:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
We had a long discussion above about how the lede sentence should be worded, and we are very close to consensus, but we haven't quite nailed it down - possibly because the discussion is so far up the page it is getting overlooked. I don't want to start a new thread at the bottom of the page, because there was a great deal of valuable discussion that led to the near-consensus that we have. Seeing that it is so close to inauguration day, I have proposed we leave the current lede as it is, and agree on what we want it to say when he is inaugurated. That gives us a week. Please chime in at that discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#Let's wrap this up. Thanks. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Sexist language was overlooked but fixed. Former businessperson. Samswik ( talk) 02:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Is everyone, really, ignoring all the criticism on Trump out there?
Why isn't there a section on criticism of him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.73.134 ( talk) 21:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I came here to browse one of the RFCs, notice of which was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. While I may comment eventually, two other things came to mind. First off, the "Professional wrestling" section states "He has hosted two WrestleMania events in the Trump Plaza", with "Trump Plaza" linking to Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino. Those events (WM IV and V) actually took place at Boardwalk Hall, which they called "Trump Plaza" strictly for storyline purposes. Secondly, I've seen a pattern of edits come across my watchlist regarding not only Trump but Linda McMahon over many months in a number of articles. These edits, mostly deletionist in nature, suggest that we don't need to mention their professional wrestling careers and political careers in the same breath, irrespective of the existence of high-quality media sources which do precisely that. I believe this is due to the pro wrestling project, where most members push the POV that their favored cherry-picked list of sources are the only valid sources to use on those articles (in other words, in this universe, the NYT and WaPo aren't reliable sources as far as they're concerned). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this golf thing really biographically significant? I have my doubts. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest the consensus here is for exclusion, with the relative silence indicating this is non-controversial. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Would this recently described moth, named after Trump, warrant itself a place within this article? Seems like another honour to the list unless we only include notable ones. Sources: [18], original article Burklemore1 ( talk) 05:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't remove the religion from the infobox. According to this RFC WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes, religions in infoboxes should generally be omitted. Blue sphere 09:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
When the article is unlocked, the religion parameter of the infobox should immediately be removed per global and local consensus. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe the section should include Donald Trump's performance during Reform Party presidential primaries, 2000.-- Bedivere.cs ( talk) 09:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
If the Reform Party's presidential primaries are notable enough for an article, so should his 2000 presidential run. This is about Donald Trump, not the Presidency of Donald Trump I support NimbleNavigator ( talk) 01:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Trump sought the Reform Party's presidential nomination in 2000, but withdrew before voting began.I believe that's enough detail and there wouldn't be a significant "electoral result" to report about this fringe primary where he was a fringe candidate. The "electoral history" section is usually meant for career politicians; Trump wasn't a "serious" politician at the time. — JFG talk 02:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Residence (white house), occupation, Offical twitter (@potus) all need to be updated, along with official website (whitehouse.gov) Fbifriday ( talk) 17:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article currently says he will be the "oldest [...] to assume the presidency". That is not true. Reagan was older at his second inauguration. I haven't checked whether there are other examples.
I am not sure exactly how to re-word; maybe something like "will be the wealthiest to assume the presidency, and the oldest to assume it for the first time". Trovatore ( talk) 07:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, so it looks like others have a different interpretation than I have of the meaning of the words, but can we at least agree that there is potential for confusion? How about an explanatory footnote on the word "oldest"? Could be very simple; just "oldest on first inauguration" or some such.
As for it being "too trivial", the problem is not whether it's trivial, but whether it's accurate and clearly stated. --
Trovatore (
talk) 08:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template.
Mz7 (
talk) 17:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)As it says in the heading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.1.111 ( talk) 13:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
As i see the word assumed office on the donad j trump wikipedia page that just wrong he was sworn into Office on January the 20th 2017 what is in you all's mind. I am requesting that assume to be changed because its jusat not the correct word to say whenmr trump was sworn into office .
Look on CNN dont try to dump an bunch of negative comments on me . Inaugural crowd sizes: Trump v. Obama sbf1998✔ 03:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbf1998 ( talk • contribs)
Trump's current official portrait is a little pixelated and not as high quality as Barack Obama's photo. Could anyone from the photo thingy touch it up? CatcherStorm talk 21:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Given the gravity of being POTUS, the line should read: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th President of the United States. Prior to his ascension to the Presidency, he was a businessman, television personality, and politician. Atrix20 ( talk) 23:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm looking to get some clarification. The current article as of the last hour [22] says, "Donald Trump is...". This is a new change to very long standing wording. I propose it says, "Donald John Trump is...", and that the consensus at item 11 above is changed accordingly. This is not a proposed change to the page title, nor the infobox which reflects the page title, nor anything else. The matter has been confused by this RfC which appears to concentrate on the occupation and completely overlook that it omitted the full name. There's a few background reasons: It's his full name and was used at the inauguration. The lede isn't part of WP:COMMONNAME - Wikipedia articles normally state the full name in the lede if known. MOS:FULLNAME is the guideline. It will match previous presidents ( Barack Hussein Obama II, George Walker Bush, William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton), as well as family ( Ivanka Marie Trump, Eric Frederick Trump, etc), colleagues ( Michael Richard "Mike" Pence), and others. Frankly it's a bit weird that it isn't there. Please indicate support or opposition below. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As a person interested in current events, I was wondering if I could add a bit more about the 2016 election. If Hillary Clinton, Jill Stien, and other presidential candidates Wikipedias are blocked, I will also request to edit them, as I feel that one of the most important pieces of one's life is their political career. I am not registered with any political party, and my election view point is one solely interested in programs or policies that are beneficial to our country. While I do not applaud Donald Trump's statements about women, I will not give my personal opinion about Mr. Trump, now Mr. President. What I will talk abut are the vigorous debates, the heated race for the presidency, and his come-from-behind victory. It is my hope that you will accept my request, so that anyone wanting to learn more about our 45th president will have a larger, and more reliable, rescource.Thank You, Benje (Mr. Choucroun) Benjec ( talk) 23:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
People far less controversial have sections dedicated to their controversies. Considering how many times "controvers" shows up in the text of this page, it should have one too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J2kun ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald Trump/Archive 44 | |
---|---|
Personal details | |
Political party | Republican (1987–99, 2009–11, 2012-present) |
I think the dates when Trump was a Republican should be combined into one entry next to his current party. It seems arbitrary to list Republican twice in both "political party" and "other political affiliations". Bokmanrocks01 ( talk) 06:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove {{ pp-dispute}}, add {{ pp-move-indef}} at the top. 121.202.139.198 ( talk) 06:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The following link leads nowhere:
http://www.lcv.org/assets/docs/presidential-candidates-on.pdf "In Their Own Words: 2016 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change" (PDF). Retrieved July 12, 2016.
Can we find a replacement link? Greggydude ( talk) 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Something to the effect of "Donald Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States, as well as a businessman..."
Listing his status as president last just seems...weird.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we please archive some of this page.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 05:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Five days sounds about right. SW3 5DL ( talk) 00:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
</sarcasm>
For what it's worth, I think 7 days is a short as it should be, but I am totally in favor of manually archiving closed discussions 24 hours after they've been concluded. This is a highly trafficked talk page that is much longer than what is typical, and it gets quite unwieldy sometimes. --
Scjessey (
talk) 13:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Because arbitrary breaks are de rigueur in long, pointless discussions and I didn't want this one to lose out. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
During the
recent discussion about the lead sentence, the word "former" was
added in front of "television personality" by
MelanieN upon a suggestion by
Scjessey, however no other participant commented at the time. Now that the wider discussion has reached consensus about the descriptors of Trump's lifetime activities and their ordering, I posit that "former" is wholly unnecessary. First, if we want to be that precise, we would need to say "former businessman" as well as "former television personality". Second, we don't usually say in a biography that Mr. X is a "former mechanic", "former lawyer" or "former activist"; he is simply a "mechanic", "lawyer" or "activist". We occasionally say people are "retired", but that wouldn't make sense here. Therefore I move that we remove "former" from the lead sentence, so that it reads Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the President-elect of the United States.
Please indicate your preference in the poll below. —
JFG
talk 16:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
He is a current executive producer of Celeb Apprentice and appears in the credits. And who's to say he won't be a contestant on reality TV shows later on? 204.197.181.138 ( talk) 19:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Docolusanya ( talk) 16:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
QT# HEs prez now
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The moment he says "So help me god", go to
my sandbox and copy the text, and paste everything EXCEPT the protection template and the categories. ∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
16:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Seeing that Mr. Trump refers to himself as Donald J. Trump, both on his Twitter account and campaign website, shouldn't this article accurately reflect how he refers to himself? Shouldn't the name of this article be Donald J. Trump? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsam ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given that it's black and white and low-resolution, and likely not the official Presidential portrait, should we wait until the official one/a high-quality color portrait comes out? MB298 ( talk) 19:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm agreeing this isn't the 'official portrait', but am wondering what it is and where it is from.
First, I notice it's related to the senate.gov, not whitehouse.gov or NARA as yet and not 'official' position portrait because he's not yet official. It's also not greatagain.gov or shareamerica.gov which would seem the more likely / authoritative sources for the president-elect camp. The senate website is about the inauguration process, and the image seems a photoshopped side item for the website from prior imagery. (At least when I do a yahoo search it seems to show a prior color image without a background of summertime whitehouse and flag in the background. So -- anyone know what the root image is from ?
Second, I'm noticing the filename is odd and not the one on their main page. The senate site shows a very similar but slightly different image here when you scroll down on their home page. So what webpage has this photo ?
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 00:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
See here : it's probably not the definitive official portrait, though. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 14:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't agree with the sudden insertion of the new image & the quick closure of the discussion. GoodDay ( talk) 17:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm just glad we have a professional and official photo. Once there is an official White House photo of him as President and not President-elect (like Obama's current infobox image), there shouldn't be a problem with replacing it. CatcherStorm talk 15:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the article has been fully protected. I've actually never seen an article in mainspace protected fully before, but that's besides the point. Question is, which admin will change "President-elect" to "45th President of the United States?" CatcherStorm talk 16:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am requesting that an administrator change "incoming president" at the top to "current president". CatcherStorm talk 17:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC) CatcherStorm talk 17:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Presidintial term: January 20, 2017 2605:6000:1525:81F9:7D6D:69DE:A1AF:D285 ( talk) 14:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I created a
sandbox if you want to make changes for when his inauguration takes place (changing all the dates and offices, etc.), When merging, make sure you keep the categories (I removed them per
WP:NOUSERCAT), and also keep the protection templates because a bot removed them, make an edit to the sandbox if you spot something. ∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
13:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
We need the President of the United States navbox content fixed. It should read January 20, 2017–present, not just January 20, 2017. GoodDay ( talk) 17:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the infobox, change "New York City" to " New York City, New York, U.S." under the "Born" section. Misterpither ( talk) 22:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. —
MartinZ02 (
talk) 23:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think that Queens, New York should be put in place after place of birth. Israeliano ( talk) 20:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Donald_Trump to See also. Thanks. Derntno ( talk) 18:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Done - Added to External links section per WP:LAYOUT.- Mr X 19:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Its terrible, doesnt look he has hair just a stupidly bad comb over.-- Simon19801 ( talk) 05:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this discussion: #The official portrait of the President-elect is out. is not a new consensus. For one thing, the portrait is not the official White House portrait, or nor is there any evidence that it's official anything. Second, consensus is not determined by one of the few participants in the discussion after only a few minutes. I'm disappointed to see several editors pointing to that discussion as justification for inserting a re-colored version of the inauguration program photo into the article while ignoring the bona fide consensus. I'm looking to Twitbookspacetube, Rick4512, Vjmlhds, RedBear2040 to explain these end runs around consensus.- Mr X 01:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
MrX The only editors who say such things are the ones consensus goes against. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I support in general the comments by Twitbookspacetube, Rick4512, Vjmlhds, RedBear2040, and Anythingyouwant, oppose in general the argument by MrX, support in particular his complaint about colorization, and nonetheless support using the colorized image OR grayscale image as opposed to the old image per talk page consensus. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 02:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
blatantly clear consensus- Saying it repeatedly, even with words like "blatantly" thrown in for enphasis, don't make it true. Carry on. ― Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Use File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg as the infobox image until the official White House portrait becomes available. (link) – Update 17 January 2017: official portrait released (link 2)seems blatantly clear to me. And the current photo is from an official source and used for an official event, how much more official does it need to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitbookspacetube ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I oppose the President-elect image of Trump. However, it will eventually be replaced during this week by a Presidential portrait of Trump. Therefore, I won't be losing any sleep over the current 'temporary' image :) GoodDay ( talk) 15:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here's what has been going on at the article:
1/19, 00:25, Cropped colorized version restored by RedBear2040" was wrong, I've corrected it. Also, your summary line comment "
(At this point the talk page tally was 8 support, 1 oppose)" is unclear and ambiguous since it implies voting between 2 different images, when the edit warring involved at least 3 images. Also, the consensus image throughout was made ambiguous/unclear by attempts to clarify it at Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs, so your generalized shaming is really not appropriate. -- IHTS ( talk) 10:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Just want to quickly point to precedent with Barack Obama in 2008/2009 before he was inaugurated and was President-elect. This verison is from December 31, 2008 (his official portrait was released on January 13 or 14, 2009) is the equivalent of what has so far been released of Donald Trump. Both of the photos are from the Joint Congressional Inauguration Committee's official program for the inauguration. Just wanted to make sure to include precedent. Calibrador ( talk) 05:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Let the record show that MelanieN has not provided a single compelling reason to support her draconian request for full page protection. Her irritation is over an absurd dispute regarding a photograph. Since MelanieN evidently doesn't take page protection seriously, there is no reason for anyone else to. This cannot stand. AllWeKnowAreTheFacts,Ma'am ( talk) 08:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
|
Independently of the arguments pro and contra the new picture, I feel that a 3-day lock provides a refreshing break to all of us valiant editors. How nice it is to envision sailing through the inauguration weekend without monitoring the Trump page constantly! — JFG talk 13:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a timing issue here. The protecting administrator chose to protect the page for three days. That will include the inauguration, at which point Trump will take the oath of office and we ought to change the article from "president-elect" to "president". We have three options.
I have filed a request at WP:DRN - please see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Donald_Trump Twitbookspacetube ( talk) 00:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
What is wrong with you people? We need this page locked, posthaste! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.136.141.60 ( talk) 03:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW — JFG talk 22:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump →
Donald J. Trump – He's now the 45th president of the United States. He calls himself Donald J. Trump, he took the oath as Donald J. Trump, and I think we should call the article Donald J. Trump.
SW3 5DL (
talk) 20:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Searching the archives, I can't find any mention of this story, which doesn't seem to lack either reliable sources or widespread reporting:
-- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
"n part due to his fame, Trump's run for president received an unprecedented amount of unpaid coverage from the media that elevated his standing in the Republican primaries."
We should absolutely mention clinton's pied piper strategy that absolutely backfired here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4201:9810:5489:3299:A6D1:A822 ( talk) 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Important not to violate WP:Original Research if the emails are used. Also, a source preferably more upstanding than The Daily Beast should be found, if possible. - Indy beetle ( talk) 00:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
2.5 Million votes less is an important fact and should be included-- Simon19801 ( talk) 05:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Should the article mention Trump's position on putting his business in a blind trust? [3] SW3 5DL ( talk) 19:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, he did bring it up at his press conference. It may take some untangling to figure out exactly what he said - aside from the fact that his two oldest sons will run the business, while he and Ivanka resign all roles. He will continue to have a financial stake in the business (a stake which has never been defined; I think it is possible that he is the SOLE owner since it is all reported through his personal tax returns.) [4] I'll do some more research and see what we can say. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Right, not a blind trust, just a trust. I think I have a decent paragraph which I will add to The Trump Organization as well as here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM discussion about trusts — JFG talk 16:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
That IP User above seems to have a God understanding of trusts. While it is easy for us regular users to like big words, like trusts, we should let experts speak and study their ideas first. Is a formal trust, like a Donald Trump Trust UA 1/18/2017 M Rosenfeld E Trump Ttes, being formed? Including retitling of assets? Unfortunately, the press often gets this (and medical stories) wrong because of lack of reporter knowledge. Let's here it from the IP and experts. Samswik ( talk) 16:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC) |
Would you agree that the addition made at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&diff=759481551&oldid=759472321 was reasonable? Twitbookspacetube ( talk) 13:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with MelanieN, give it 48 hours. WP:NOTNEWS and all. We could be having a scandal a day for the next four years for all we know, and not every one of them would merit inclusion. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I’m nearly always in favor of waiting a couple days before adding new, controversial info. This is no exception. OTOH, I wouldn’t argue against including some, careful, earlier mention in articles specifically about the election or Russia-U.S. relations. Objective3000 ( talk) 16:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
At least 48 hours. I wouldn't see the urgency even then, aside from the avoidance of uninformed accusations of suppression. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The above edit was perfectly fine. We can expect that some editors will vehemently oppose *ANY* mention of this situation in the lede, no matter how notable it is. I'm also unclear on what the "leak" is suppose to be. The media has had access to this report for months, since June at least. McCain got it and gave it to FBI in December. Etc. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with a 48-hour hold to let the details settle, but it seems almost certain that this must be included in some form. The narrative crafted by the Trump team is that nothing has been corroborated, but the BBC now says there are more sources. Also, news outlets and Wikipedia had no qualms about giving coverage to uncorroborated material from WikiLeaks about Hillary Clinton, so let's not have a double standard here. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The details of the allegations are going mainstream. Just yesterday I saw a headline reading "Meryl Streep Takes Aim at Trump"! -- Pete ( talk) 16:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
It's been more than 48 hours and this story is still a big thing, so that excuse is gone. To clarify, the proposed edit simply entails putting in a single sentence stating that Trump was briefed on the as yet unverified allegations, with no details of said allegations, and that trump has denied them. The consensus seems rather clear, but I would just like to make sure that I have read it right. Does the edit linked at the start of this section seem reasonable? Twitbookspacetube ( talk) 10:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Buzzfeed ran an article containing a document that alleges (Redacted). This has been picked up by a number of other sources, such as Cosmopolitan. How long should we wait, and what level of reliable source should we require, to cover these allegations? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 01:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It's front page is ny times and Washington post. Some key facts that should be included, including that the FBI sought a FISA warrant on Trump's campaign, but were denied until October. This is extremely significant. Casprings ( talk) 03:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Some of the specific allegations might be UNDUE per BLP, but the general story is all over the sources. [11], [12], [13], [14]. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Too soon, not enough corroboration. These are make allegations and most news outlets are treating them as rumors at the moment. Wait until we get solid, unequivocal confirmation. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
As an FYI Donald Trump "compromised" claims has been created. I originally tagged it as G10 when it was under another name that was about the claims not mentioned in RS. It's since been moved the the G10 contested by an editor other than the creator. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
We definitely shouldn't add anything about this until we get a very reliable source. A golden source, like the NYT or Washington Post. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 07:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Non useful edits. Keep in mind this is a BLP and receives heavy traffic. ― Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
It's clear that the whole Russia thing – not just this most recent information, but also Russia's interference in the election – needs to be mentioned in the lead of this article, per WP:LEAD ("The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"). Since he lost the election by 3 million votes but nevertheless was appointed president due to the odd political system of his country, his ties to Russia, Russia's election interference has completely dominated the conversation. Russia is the single most important thing that can be said about him after the election. -- Tataral ( talk) 12:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Since he lost the election by 3 million votes but nevertheless was appointed president". Some basic education for you: The Presidency is not "appointed" it is won; Trump won the election the only way it can/could be won (i.e. "Road to 270"); national popular vote is an interesting fact but beyond that has no bearing, it also cannot be "won"/"lost" since it is not a race/competition. IHTS ( talk) 14:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Non useful edits. Keep in mind this is a BLP and receives heavy traffic. Objective3000 ( talk) 13:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
These edits should probably be deleted. Besides I hate puns. Objective3000 ( talk) 13:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC) |
The Russians hacked into the DNC (and also into Republican sources, despite Trump's denial)... please be accurate and precise, MelanieN. Are you talking about agents of the Russian intelligence services, or are you talking about cracking-groups located in the landmass of Russia somewheres, who may or may not be 'linked' informally to governmental agencies? Are you talking about the high-level Trump campaign staffers and high-level RNC staffers, or are you talking about some Republican-party-leaning bloggers and some state-level campaign staffers? There is also the distinction between the intent to gather information for unspecified purposes (cracking groups) and an alleged intent to gather information to mess with the election for geopolitical purposes (intel agencies). Please see [15] which has a good overview of the nuances here. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 01:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
We had a long discussion above about how the lede sentence should be worded, and we are very close to consensus, but we haven't quite nailed it down - possibly because the discussion is so far up the page it is getting overlooked. I don't want to start a new thread at the bottom of the page, because there was a great deal of valuable discussion that led to the near-consensus that we have. Seeing that it is so close to inauguration day, I have proposed we leave the current lede as it is, and agree on what we want it to say when he is inaugurated. That gives us a week. Please chime in at that discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#Let's wrap this up. Thanks. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Sexist language was overlooked but fixed. Former businessperson. Samswik ( talk) 02:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Is everyone, really, ignoring all the criticism on Trump out there?
Why isn't there a section on criticism of him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.73.134 ( talk) 21:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I came here to browse one of the RFCs, notice of which was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. While I may comment eventually, two other things came to mind. First off, the "Professional wrestling" section states "He has hosted two WrestleMania events in the Trump Plaza", with "Trump Plaza" linking to Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino. Those events (WM IV and V) actually took place at Boardwalk Hall, which they called "Trump Plaza" strictly for storyline purposes. Secondly, I've seen a pattern of edits come across my watchlist regarding not only Trump but Linda McMahon over many months in a number of articles. These edits, mostly deletionist in nature, suggest that we don't need to mention their professional wrestling careers and political careers in the same breath, irrespective of the existence of high-quality media sources which do precisely that. I believe this is due to the pro wrestling project, where most members push the POV that their favored cherry-picked list of sources are the only valid sources to use on those articles (in other words, in this universe, the NYT and WaPo aren't reliable sources as far as they're concerned). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this golf thing really biographically significant? I have my doubts. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest the consensus here is for exclusion, with the relative silence indicating this is non-controversial. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Would this recently described moth, named after Trump, warrant itself a place within this article? Seems like another honour to the list unless we only include notable ones. Sources: [18], original article Burklemore1 ( talk) 05:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't remove the religion from the infobox. According to this RFC WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes, religions in infoboxes should generally be omitted. Blue sphere 09:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
When the article is unlocked, the religion parameter of the infobox should immediately be removed per global and local consensus. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe the section should include Donald Trump's performance during Reform Party presidential primaries, 2000.-- Bedivere.cs ( talk) 09:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
If the Reform Party's presidential primaries are notable enough for an article, so should his 2000 presidential run. This is about Donald Trump, not the Presidency of Donald Trump I support NimbleNavigator ( talk) 01:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Trump sought the Reform Party's presidential nomination in 2000, but withdrew before voting began.I believe that's enough detail and there wouldn't be a significant "electoral result" to report about this fringe primary where he was a fringe candidate. The "electoral history" section is usually meant for career politicians; Trump wasn't a "serious" politician at the time. — JFG talk 02:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Residence (white house), occupation, Offical twitter (@potus) all need to be updated, along with official website (whitehouse.gov) Fbifriday ( talk) 17:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article currently says he will be the "oldest [...] to assume the presidency". That is not true. Reagan was older at his second inauguration. I haven't checked whether there are other examples.
I am not sure exactly how to re-word; maybe something like "will be the wealthiest to assume the presidency, and the oldest to assume it for the first time". Trovatore ( talk) 07:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, so it looks like others have a different interpretation than I have of the meaning of the words, but can we at least agree that there is potential for confusion? How about an explanatory footnote on the word "oldest"? Could be very simple; just "oldest on first inauguration" or some such.
As for it being "too trivial", the problem is not whether it's trivial, but whether it's accurate and clearly stated. --
Trovatore (
talk) 08:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template.
Mz7 (
talk) 17:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)As it says in the heading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.1.111 ( talk) 13:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
As i see the word assumed office on the donad j trump wikipedia page that just wrong he was sworn into Office on January the 20th 2017 what is in you all's mind. I am requesting that assume to be changed because its jusat not the correct word to say whenmr trump was sworn into office .
Look on CNN dont try to dump an bunch of negative comments on me . Inaugural crowd sizes: Trump v. Obama sbf1998✔ 03:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbf1998 ( talk • contribs)
Trump's current official portrait is a little pixelated and not as high quality as Barack Obama's photo. Could anyone from the photo thingy touch it up? CatcherStorm talk 21:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Given the gravity of being POTUS, the line should read: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th President of the United States. Prior to his ascension to the Presidency, he was a businessman, television personality, and politician. Atrix20 ( talk) 23:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm looking to get some clarification. The current article as of the last hour [22] says, "Donald Trump is...". This is a new change to very long standing wording. I propose it says, "Donald John Trump is...", and that the consensus at item 11 above is changed accordingly. This is not a proposed change to the page title, nor the infobox which reflects the page title, nor anything else. The matter has been confused by this RfC which appears to concentrate on the occupation and completely overlook that it omitted the full name. There's a few background reasons: It's his full name and was used at the inauguration. The lede isn't part of WP:COMMONNAME - Wikipedia articles normally state the full name in the lede if known. MOS:FULLNAME is the guideline. It will match previous presidents ( Barack Hussein Obama II, George Walker Bush, William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton), as well as family ( Ivanka Marie Trump, Eric Frederick Trump, etc), colleagues ( Michael Richard "Mike" Pence), and others. Frankly it's a bit weird that it isn't there. Please indicate support or opposition below. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As a person interested in current events, I was wondering if I could add a bit more about the 2016 election. If Hillary Clinton, Jill Stien, and other presidential candidates Wikipedias are blocked, I will also request to edit them, as I feel that one of the most important pieces of one's life is their political career. I am not registered with any political party, and my election view point is one solely interested in programs or policies that are beneficial to our country. While I do not applaud Donald Trump's statements about women, I will not give my personal opinion about Mr. Trump, now Mr. President. What I will talk abut are the vigorous debates, the heated race for the presidency, and his come-from-behind victory. It is my hope that you will accept my request, so that anyone wanting to learn more about our 45th president will have a larger, and more reliable, rescource.Thank You, Benje (Mr. Choucroun) Benjec ( talk) 23:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
People far less controversial have sections dedicated to their controversies. Considering how many times "controvers" shows up in the text of this page, it should have one too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J2kun ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald Trump/Archive 44 | |
---|---|
Personal details | |
Political party | Republican (1987–99, 2009–11, 2012-present) |
I think the dates when Trump was a Republican should be combined into one entry next to his current party. It seems arbitrary to list Republican twice in both "political party" and "other political affiliations". Bokmanrocks01 ( talk) 06:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove {{ pp-dispute}}, add {{ pp-move-indef}} at the top. 121.202.139.198 ( talk) 06:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The following link leads nowhere:
http://www.lcv.org/assets/docs/presidential-candidates-on.pdf "In Their Own Words: 2016 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change" (PDF). Retrieved July 12, 2016.
Can we find a replacement link? Greggydude ( talk) 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Something to the effect of "Donald Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States, as well as a businessman..."
Listing his status as president last just seems...weird.