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 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Could someone please explain by what consensus or authorization this came from?
Firm consensus is needed to re-install a POV tag above this article per discretionary sanctions. Please consider proposing it at the talk page, or getting attention of further editors other ways, like using an RfC or a section tag or an inline tag.
KINGOFTO (
talk) 22:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Donald Trump series#Trimming the template. - Mr X 02:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman said neutrality issues are required for a POV tag; here are some imo.
1: "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false" The inclusion of the word "false" is obviously not neutral
2: "audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women" the recording does not have Trump saying he "forcibly" did anything nor that he actually groped women. the recording said that because he was a star, women allowed him to kiss them and that he could grope them if he chose to.
3:"A subsequent analysis by The Washington Post, whose reporters were denied press credentials by the Trump presidential campaign, concluded that "Trump is a mix of braggadocio, business failures, and real success."[34]" an obvious neutrality issue: This statement infers a retaliatory analysis and adds nothing to the BLP
4"Trump's candidacy has been described as something around which the alt-right movement has coalesced,[259] together with its opposition to multiculturalism and immigration.[260][261]" Another neutrality issue
5 "at least 15 women[384] came forward with new accounts of sexual misconduct including unwanted kissing and groping" the word "accounts" infers not debatable...the word "claimed" should be used
6:Immigration policies The section is not about immigration, it is about illegal immigration and the misrepresentation of that is a major neutrality issue.
7:"He repeated a National Enquirer allegation that Rafael Cruz, father of Ted Cruz, may have been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy" The source says "linking Cruz’s father to the man who shot President John F. Kennedy and in no way says his father "may have been involved in the assassination" KINGOFTO ( talk) 03:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
On the first one, there was a HUUUUGGGEEEE RfC about that [1]. So that's not going to fly. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Second one is based on reliable sources and has also been discussed to death.
Third, fourth are just your basic WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. This is well sourced and attributed. You can't just call something you don't like "a neutrality issue". You have to show that it is not based on sources or that it misrepresents sources.
Actually the same thing for five, six and seven. You are mistaking your own opinions for "neutrality". Bring sources to the table and arguments grounded in policy or the tag is spurious. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
And oh yeah, there's a big ol' notice at the top of the article when you click edit which says:
" Firm consensus is needed to re-install a POV tag atop this article per discretionary sanctions. Please consider proposing it at the talk page, or getting attention of further editors other ways, like using an RFC or a section tag or an inline tag."
Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Sources that say "forcibly"
|
---|
|
Who said otherwise?With respect, I think you did it implicitly when you reinstated unsourced content (while removing another piece of unsourced content). Since Volunteer Marek's edit summary said "
since sources actually use the terms "forcibly" and "accused" not "non-consensual", I assume the only purpose they added WaPo source was because they wanted to use word "forcibly". One would expect to find word "forcibly" in the WaPo article, but I did not find it, hence I made a technical edit in order to enforce WP:V. It would be okay for an editor to say that they are paraphrasing this and this source; then we could discuss how faithful to the source that paraphrase is. I'm not saying that we must use the exact words our sources use – sometimes it's the best course of action, sometimes it isn't – but it's a whole different matter to imply that we use the exact wording when we don't.
|quote=
parameter. I also explicitly endorse using citations, i.e. <ref>
tags, in the lead at least until there is consensus on the wording per
WP:V ("All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."), and per WP:LEADCITE ("
Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. ... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.")
At least one of the sources cited in the article specifically says "...a video of Trump bragging to “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush in 2005..."" above. Had I noticed that, I would have, of course, cited this source for "bragged", and another WaPo source (which says "can be heard making vulgar comments" instead of "bragging") for "without their consent".
Fyddlestix has amply demonstrated that sources say "forcibly"– I agree and I thank for citing them in the article. We don't know if "forcibly" is what majority of sources use – proving that would require more than basic research – but if anyone objects "forcing", they should bring another set of sources that use different wording.
1: "HUUUUGGGEEEE RfC about that [7]" ... kind of proves his point there are 20 editors in dispute with the word 2. 'Forcibly' is still in dispute, and "based on" reliable sources sounds a bit like OR rather than NPOV conveying all POVs. 3. WaPo indignation ... Rather than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, he seems correct - this is a single offended party, not meeting 'independant' and not wide ... and I'll add what the heck is significant enough to his life to make that worth a BLP inclusion ? 4. How candidacy described - not WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT if it's the only POV being presented ... and again, editor dispute is what the POV tag says. 5, 6, 7 - OK you oppose him, citing opinion difference... demonstrating again POV dispute
The section about health says he doesn't drink alcohol. I'm pretty sure I've seen him drink wine in The Apprentice, but I'm not going to suffer through watching it again to find which episode it was. PizzaMan ( ♨♨) 08:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
As editors we need to reflect the content of Reliable Sources. I propose the following:
"Trump was, in 2005, caught on audio tape claiming that, because he was a "star", women allowed him to kiss them and also would allow him, if he chose to, to grab their "pussy"'.
That is an accurate reflection of what he said. What we have now in the lead is an inaccurate and exaggerated reflection. KINGOFTO ( talk) 02:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Clear your heads. He never confessed to grabbing anything. He boasted he could do so if he wanted to, based on his star status. IHTS ( talk) 09:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me like there wouldn't be any disputes over neutrality if such sentences were taken from reliable sources and not tweaked around to fit an agenda. Although, unless such allegations have been verifiably proven, while such information could certainly remain in the article, perhaps it may not be entirely suited for the article's introduction. – Matthew - ( talk) 21:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Courtesy post:
sources supporting "being able to"
|
---|
"Trump said he tried to 'fuck' a married woman and bragged about being able to grope women because of his 'star' status." Diamond, Jeremy. "Trump issues defiant apology for lewd remarks -- then goes on the attack", CNN (October 8, 2016). ".... comments Trump made in a 2005 'Access Hollywood,' where he bragged about being able to force himself on women against their will because of his celebrity." DelReal, Jose and Johnson, Jenna. [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/22/trump-threatening-nearly-one-dozen-sexual-assault-accusers-vows-to-sue/ "Trump, threatening nearly a dozen sexual assault accusers, vows to sue"], Washington Post (October 22, 2016). "a leaked hot mic conversation in which the Republican nominee bragged about being able to touch women because he is a 'star.'" Diaz, Daniella. "Trump: Clinton is behind sexual assault allegations", CNN (October 19, 2016). "Trump bragged about being able to grope and kiss women" Diamond, Jeremy. "Trump: I'd 'love' to fight Biden", CNN (October 26, 2016). "he bragged about being able to grope women because he is a celebrity" Diaz, Daniella. [ http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/joe-biden-anthony-weiner-emails-hillary-clinton/ "Biden on Weiner: 'I'm not a big fan'"], CNN (October 29, 2016). "The leak of a 2005 hot-mic video two days before the second debate in which Trump bragged about being able to grope women led to Clinton’s biggest single-day gain of the past four weeks." Tartar, Andre and Tioruririne, Adam. "Trump, Clinton Double Down on Their Strategies: Final Debate By the Numbers", Bloomberg News (October 20, 2016). "remarks Trump made in a leaked 2005 conversation, in which he bragged about being able to grope women because of his fame." "Retired Military Officials Condemn Donald Trump Over Issue of Sexual Assault", Fortune (October 18, 2016). "last week’s release of a 2005 video in which he bragged about being able to exploit women sexually." Langley, Monica. [ http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-angrily-denies-allegations-of-groping-points-finger-at-media-and-clinton-campaign-1476384833 "Donald Trump Prepares New Attack on Media, Clinton"], Wall Street Journal (October 13, 2016). "Trump bragged about being able to grope and otherwise touch women without consent or consequences." Lesniewski, Niels. "Heck Hopes to Mimic Reid in Nevada But for GOP", Roll Call (October 15, 2016). "he bragged about being able to 'do anything' to women 'when you're a star,' including 'grab them' by the genitals" Jaffa, Alexandra and Gutters, Hasani. "Rudy Giuliani on Donald Trump's Crass Comments: 'Both Sides Have Sinned'", NBC News (October 9, 2016). The accusations come after the release of a 2005 tape earlier this month in which Trump bragged about being able to grope or kiss women due to because he was a celebrity. Savransky, Rebecca. "Trump: 'Nothing ever happened' with accusers", The Hill (newspaper) (October 15, 2016). |
Thanks for your consider. IHTS ( talk) 08:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this limit of TOC to 3 levels [13] is good.
This is a complicated article with lots of details. A detailed TOC, like a good introduction, makes it easier to figure out what the article covers.
The TOC limit 3 makes it difficult for the reader to figure out what's covered by the article. For example, it makes it harder to find "Sexual misconduct allegations". A bare mention of "Political positions" doesn't tell the reader that the entry deals with social issues, economic issues, healthcare issues, etc.
In contrast, the Business Career section outlines all of his businesses.
Is there anybody else here who would like to revert it? -- Nbauman ( talk) 20:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
you must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page. As I reverted your change to a longstanding situation, the onus is on you to obtain consensus for an expanded TOC. — JFG talk 05:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@
Nbauman: You wrote: with the TOC limits, the "Sexual misconduct allegations" became invisible.
This is wrong; they didn't "become" invisible because of the TOC limit, they always were, by virtue of being written months later. You also wrote: The TOC is organized in such a way as to hide them in the body of the text
, implying intent to hide. I say there's no intent to hide anything; there was a long TOC on a {{
very long}} article and it was accordingly limited in depth 6 months ago. Recently this groping affair emerged and was placed under the "Presidential campaign" section, so it was not mentioned in the TOC. (Note in passing that contrary to your assertions I was not involved in adding this content or discussing its hierarchical placement.) Now you and Bastun argue that this incident is worth mentioning in the TOC and I argue that the TOC would become unwieldy if we lifted the limit. Clearly I won't convince you and you won't convince me. Unless other editors weigh in strongly one way or another, we should leave the matter to rest. —
JFG
talk 01:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe we should cover the Trump email controversy somewhere in the article. As Newsweek notes, "Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders." [14] -- Tataral ( talk) 20:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
This again follows the pattern of: 1) Verified material covered by multiple reliable sources gets added to an article. 2) As it's perceived as being negative to Trump, it gets removed. 3) "Debate" follows, with various policies quoted, but no clear consensus can obviously emerge so partisan editors effectively keep out the negative material prior to the election. I've not checked the equivalent Clinton article, but I'm sure it's talk page doesn't include contributions from the same editors who are here quoting WP:RECENTISM, WP:BALASP and similar, in relation to the latest "FBI investigating Clinton for emails she didn't send" story. I find it hard to believe this is what Arbcom actually intended. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
FWIW - Concerning any controversies, both this article & Hillary Clinton, should be left alone until after the prez election. GoodDay ( talk) 18:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
It looks like someone has created Donald Trump email controversy. It seems like that information should be included into this article or merged into Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The standalone article seems very weak and unlikely to have any legs. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey all. I removed the (short) paragraph in this edit, citing BLP/UNDUE concerns, and I noted that I had also looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump email controversy, where a consensus right now is difficult to see--but there's a lot of delete votes, and a number of merge votes, and some legitimate concerns, which strengthened my in my opinion. My invocation of the BLP is not unequivocal; it's a judgment call, and the moment you all have a decent consensus here on what to do with it, I will not stand in the way. This is going to be a matter of editorial consensus, so good luck with it.
BTW, my edit summary was so long that I had to remove "Undid edit by Volunteer Marek", and I didn't want to make this personal anyway--so let me just say congrats that Auburn was ranked in the top ten. Drmies ( talk) 18:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe that this removal of the comma I added is incorrect. See e.g. here.
The relative clause here is non-restrictive, i.e. the sentence could equivalently be split into two: "Trump is ... a politician. He is the Republican nominee..."
The relative clause cannot meaningfully be restrictive in this context, given the combination of the indefinite article in the main clause and the definite article in the relative clause. In other words, you could say "the politician who is the Republican nominee", but you can't say "a politician who is the Republican nominee" because there is by definition only one politician who is the Republican nominee.
Maybe nobody cares, but I would think that the first sentence of a very high-profile article ought to be grammatically correct.
-- Money money tickle parsnip ( talk) 15:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
All major betting markets have him at 97-99% (the difference from 100% largely due to fees & commissions). Do we wait for AP to announce? Aaaaaabbbbb111 ( talk) 05:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump won the electoral college vote with 276 votes as of 7:44 am, Greenwich Time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorigoat ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
In the tape, he says as a star women let him do it. That implies consent, not forced action.
Tai Hai Chen ( talk) 07:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump won the presidential election. Add more stuff in this wiki! Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 08:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't it premature to call Donald Trump President-Elect until the Electoral College elections occur in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. I thought there was something in the constitution about that where yes he is elected by popular vote but in order to be the President-Elect he needs to be elected by the Electoral College first and then and only then can he be called President-Elect and then upon swearing-in President of the United States. YborCityJohn ( talk) 08:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
It may be technically/legally correct to say he is not really the president-elect until the Electoral College has met and acted. But at Wikipedia we follow Reliable Sources, and sources are unanimous in referring to him as president-elect. [24] [25] [26] -- MelanieN ( talk) 09:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
YborCityJohn I just looked through the text of both Article 2 and the Twelfth Amendment, and neither one use the word "President-elect" nor make reference to when that title applies. Both items simply specify how the US Electoral College chooses the President and Vice-President, and when terms take effect, etc. etc. That's all. RegistryKey (RegEdit) 11:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
In the sentence "At 70, he will be the oldest person to ever become a first-term president, surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he won the election in 1980." we are juxtaposing winning (Reagan 1980) and becaming president (Trump 2017 ["will be"]). Strictly speaking it should be:
The first option is more durable, as — gramatically — it will still be valid after taking office. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 15:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
It's really really long right now, especially the part about the sexual misconduct allegations (not even proven)... It's almost completely copied from the main article. The taxes bit is also a bit long. Should we trim it a bit? User1937 ( talk) 15:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
If Trump wins I made his President-Elect template.
Donald Trump | |
---|---|
President-elect of the United States | |
Assuming office January 20, 2017 | |
Vice President | Mike Pence (elect) |
Succeeding | Barack Obama |
Personal details | |
Born | Donald John Trump June 14, 1946 New York City, New York, U.S.A. |
Political party | Republican |
Spouse | Melania Trump |
Children |
|
Residence(s) | Manhattan, New York, U.S.A.] |
Alma mater | |
Occupation | Businessman |
Signature | |
Website |
Official website Campaign website |
Residence and occupation will change. It is assumed that the president is an American. Trump may have dual nationality as his mother was from the UK. Religion is no longer the defining feature it once was. I would leave out anything that is unimportant or ambiguous. TFD ( talk) 06:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
For people born in 1946 British nationality was acquired by descent through the legitimate male line. You didn't get British nationality by having a British-born mother when you were born in the US to an American father. Trump is certainly no British citizen; the UK Parliament wouldn't debate banning one of its own citizens from the country for hate speech. -- Tataral ( talk) 07:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Are we removing this after today? Seems pretty weird to let it stay there, Obama doesn't have a "policies" section. User1937 ( talk) 05:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The opening sentence of the article contains a possible error. That sentence begins, "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television producer, and politician . . . " That last word is incorrect. If Trump is elected president, he will be the first to attain that office who had never served in any prior political office or the military. That means that he won't become a "politician" unless he wins--and only then after he is inaugurated. And if he loses, of course, he will remain, as he himself says, a political outsider. In his speeches he has even declared plainly, "I am not a politician." It would, therefore, have been more correct to have written "political candidate" instead of "politician" in that sentence.
Fredwords ( talk) 6:45 PM Eastern, November 8, 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Can this be added? Also this article: List of United States Presidents by net worth should be updated. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 08:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
He still hasn't released his tax returns (the only presidential candidate in recent years not to do so), so no, we don't. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Since all articles about previous Presidents have religion in their infoboxes, I suggest adding:
Presbyterian
to the infobox. Or delete that parameter from all those articles? Ernio48 ( talk) 11:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ernio, I added exactly that this morning and someone inexplicably removed it.
I agree it should be re-added, however I do not want an edit war over something so empirical but also something so minor. But it belongs in the infobox like for any other President. -- OettingerCroat ( talk) 22:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
User1937 ( talk) 18:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
It is time to start working on a sub section or something on how the world reacts to the results, for instance, how he is first and foremost congratulated by far right figures ( Far right first to congratulate Trump on historic upset: Around the world rightwing nationalists and far-right leaders react with glee as Republican candidate wins US election). We also need to revisit the issue at some point of how his position in the political landscape should be described; certainly there is a strong case for describing him as a far right politician in the first paragraph of the lead, based on coverage in reliable sources and his political positions and how they are assessed in reliable sources. -- Tataral ( talk) 09:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
<Personal attacks and BLP violations removed.>-- BowlAndSpoon ( talk) 10:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The sexual accusations are all rumors, NOTHING has been proven. This should be removed, who's with me? User1937 ( talk) 15:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
There is consensus to include this after weeks of extensive discussion. -- Tataral ( talk) 17:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Do not see specifics and sources for this statement, "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false." Add specific examples and sources or remove it.
The infobox says that he was Democrat prior to 1987, but the Political Affiliation section either isn't clear on his pre-1987 standing or seems to suggest that he in fact leaned Republican. - 2601:204:C901:E73C:2DA8:481D:BBFC:FCA ( talk) 06:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
This edit seems problematic to me. Is there any substantive reason for it? There was no edit-warring today about this material, and much if it was added material, not even changing what was already there. An admission of criminal behavior is very serious stuff, and we ought to be neutral and accurate about such stuff, no? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
It's all in the main article, let's just link to it the way it's linked in Barack Obama's second infobox. User1937 ( talk) 16:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
So I'm asking for consensus. User1937 ( talk) 17:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, I asked for another consensus above this (Presidential campaign, 2016 should be shortened), but you all aren't commenting in that? It seems like I only get consensus going when I go through with edits here :/ User1937 ( talk) 17:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Simplistic wordings such as "he defeated Hillary Clinton in the general election" need to be reworded as Clinton won a majority of the votes [33], while Trump's candidates won a majority in the Electoral College, which is expected to appoint a president later. -- Tataral ( talk) 17:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Tataral -- Just follow the cites and you'll see that it's not
WP:DUE coverage ... I'm seeing it's about 20 "Donald wins" or "surprise win" to any mention of popular vote (googling, ~75:4 million), and a lot of the popular vote mentions seem afterthought to 'Hillary lost' such as 'Hillary lost, but may still win the popular vote'. So the wording to reflect the prominence is 'Trump surprise win'.
Markbassett (
talk) 01:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
"he will be the oldest person to ever become a assume the presidency."
Fierogt ( talk) 02:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Trump#Requested move 9 November 2016 There is a move request ongoing, I just thought I would let you know. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
On
Donald Trump filmography, it opens "Donald Trump is an American actor, television personality..." should it state "actor" on this article? At most, it should say "television personality". ∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
13:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
All the following statements seem to be really unneccesary right now in the lead, meticulous DETAILS, and past incidents (media gossip) during a presidential campaign which finally had no influence on the final results of the Presidential election:
1.-"Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false" (Biased, speculative)
2.-"On October 7, a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women; multiple women accused him of forcibly doing so shortly thereafter." (God, already included in the body content, besides, there is a whole article about this gossip, no need for this specific incident in the lead)
In my opinion, there is no place for this chit chat - (difficult to corroborate) allegations in the lede of an article about a Head of State. This is an encyclopedia and all those statements now turned into pure conjectures and "dirty trick campaign" stuff. Ajax1995 ( talk) 16:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I assume someone will add information about the current Protests going on? Seems important to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleylife ( talk • contribs) 09:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I suppose this may be out-of-place in this thread, but it seems almost as if this biography is being used to "protest Trump" as well - nowhere near Neutral POV. It is not the function of an *encyclopedia* to criticize individuals and their actions. In many cases this goes far beyond what is normally said about a political candidate, one who has never been convicted of a criminal act. Dfoofnik ( talk) 18:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The general election section says the following: "Trump's win simultaneously marked the first time that Republicans gained control over both the White House and Congress since 1928."
The GOP controlled the WH/Senate/House during the GWBush years. If there's some other meaning intended, it needs to be clarified, otherwise it's flat-out wrong (more specifically, the cited Fortune article got it wrong). Aldaryx ( talk) 01:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The wording is correct, it says "gained".
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first line 'Donald John Trump (/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, reality television star, and' change the word "star" to host or presenter. In the U.S. ther term 'star" connotates a professional actor or performer. Changing to host will pnot denigrate Trump or his role. Smarkham01 ( talk) 03:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This BLP presently says:
“ | He also speaks of his efforts to seduce a married woman, saying he "moved on her very heavily." [1] | ” |
The cited source says very clearly that those efforts were unsuccessful, and so I suggest this instead:
“ | He also speaks of his unsuccessful efforts to seduce a married woman, saying: "I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it....I moved on her very heavily." [1] | ” |
Without this correction, we suggest that he "moved heavily" in a forcible way (especially given what the previous sentences of the BLP currently say about forcible kissing and groping). The cited source says, "In that audio, Trump discusses a failed attempt to seduce a woman, whose full name is not given in the video. 'I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it,' Trump is heard saying."
References
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the line about Clinton winning the popular vote, as this count is still being conducted and the numbers are not finalized. This is not yet a fact, and should not be a part of Wikipedia until it is a fact. This reflects a discussion and change on Hillary Clinton. {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
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 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Could someone please explain by what consensus or authorization this came from?
Firm consensus is needed to re-install a POV tag above this article per discretionary sanctions. Please consider proposing it at the talk page, or getting attention of further editors other ways, like using an RfC or a section tag or an inline tag.
KINGOFTO (
talk) 22:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Donald Trump series#Trimming the template. - Mr X 02:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman said neutrality issues are required for a POV tag; here are some imo.
1: "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false" The inclusion of the word "false" is obviously not neutral
2: "audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women" the recording does not have Trump saying he "forcibly" did anything nor that he actually groped women. the recording said that because he was a star, women allowed him to kiss them and that he could grope them if he chose to.
3:"A subsequent analysis by The Washington Post, whose reporters were denied press credentials by the Trump presidential campaign, concluded that "Trump is a mix of braggadocio, business failures, and real success."[34]" an obvious neutrality issue: This statement infers a retaliatory analysis and adds nothing to the BLP
4"Trump's candidacy has been described as something around which the alt-right movement has coalesced,[259] together with its opposition to multiculturalism and immigration.[260][261]" Another neutrality issue
5 "at least 15 women[384] came forward with new accounts of sexual misconduct including unwanted kissing and groping" the word "accounts" infers not debatable...the word "claimed" should be used
6:Immigration policies The section is not about immigration, it is about illegal immigration and the misrepresentation of that is a major neutrality issue.
7:"He repeated a National Enquirer allegation that Rafael Cruz, father of Ted Cruz, may have been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy" The source says "linking Cruz’s father to the man who shot President John F. Kennedy and in no way says his father "may have been involved in the assassination" KINGOFTO ( talk) 03:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
On the first one, there was a HUUUUGGGEEEE RfC about that [1]. So that's not going to fly. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Second one is based on reliable sources and has also been discussed to death.
Third, fourth are just your basic WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. This is well sourced and attributed. You can't just call something you don't like "a neutrality issue". You have to show that it is not based on sources or that it misrepresents sources.
Actually the same thing for five, six and seven. You are mistaking your own opinions for "neutrality". Bring sources to the table and arguments grounded in policy or the tag is spurious. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
And oh yeah, there's a big ol' notice at the top of the article when you click edit which says:
" Firm consensus is needed to re-install a POV tag atop this article per discretionary sanctions. Please consider proposing it at the talk page, or getting attention of further editors other ways, like using an RFC or a section tag or an inline tag."
Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Sources that say "forcibly"
|
---|
|
Who said otherwise?With respect, I think you did it implicitly when you reinstated unsourced content (while removing another piece of unsourced content). Since Volunteer Marek's edit summary said "
since sources actually use the terms "forcibly" and "accused" not "non-consensual", I assume the only purpose they added WaPo source was because they wanted to use word "forcibly". One would expect to find word "forcibly" in the WaPo article, but I did not find it, hence I made a technical edit in order to enforce WP:V. It would be okay for an editor to say that they are paraphrasing this and this source; then we could discuss how faithful to the source that paraphrase is. I'm not saying that we must use the exact words our sources use – sometimes it's the best course of action, sometimes it isn't – but it's a whole different matter to imply that we use the exact wording when we don't.
|quote=
parameter. I also explicitly endorse using citations, i.e. <ref>
tags, in the lead at least until there is consensus on the wording per
WP:V ("All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."), and per WP:LEADCITE ("
Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. ... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.")
At least one of the sources cited in the article specifically says "...a video of Trump bragging to “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush in 2005..."" above. Had I noticed that, I would have, of course, cited this source for "bragged", and another WaPo source (which says "can be heard making vulgar comments" instead of "bragging") for "without their consent".
Fyddlestix has amply demonstrated that sources say "forcibly"– I agree and I thank for citing them in the article. We don't know if "forcibly" is what majority of sources use – proving that would require more than basic research – but if anyone objects "forcing", they should bring another set of sources that use different wording.
1: "HUUUUGGGEEEE RfC about that [7]" ... kind of proves his point there are 20 editors in dispute with the word 2. 'Forcibly' is still in dispute, and "based on" reliable sources sounds a bit like OR rather than NPOV conveying all POVs. 3. WaPo indignation ... Rather than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, he seems correct - this is a single offended party, not meeting 'independant' and not wide ... and I'll add what the heck is significant enough to his life to make that worth a BLP inclusion ? 4. How candidacy described - not WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT if it's the only POV being presented ... and again, editor dispute is what the POV tag says. 5, 6, 7 - OK you oppose him, citing opinion difference... demonstrating again POV dispute
The section about health says he doesn't drink alcohol. I'm pretty sure I've seen him drink wine in The Apprentice, but I'm not going to suffer through watching it again to find which episode it was. PizzaMan ( ♨♨) 08:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
As editors we need to reflect the content of Reliable Sources. I propose the following:
"Trump was, in 2005, caught on audio tape claiming that, because he was a "star", women allowed him to kiss them and also would allow him, if he chose to, to grab their "pussy"'.
That is an accurate reflection of what he said. What we have now in the lead is an inaccurate and exaggerated reflection. KINGOFTO ( talk) 02:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Clear your heads. He never confessed to grabbing anything. He boasted he could do so if he wanted to, based on his star status. IHTS ( talk) 09:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me like there wouldn't be any disputes over neutrality if such sentences were taken from reliable sources and not tweaked around to fit an agenda. Although, unless such allegations have been verifiably proven, while such information could certainly remain in the article, perhaps it may not be entirely suited for the article's introduction. – Matthew - ( talk) 21:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Courtesy post:
sources supporting "being able to"
|
---|
"Trump said he tried to 'fuck' a married woman and bragged about being able to grope women because of his 'star' status." Diamond, Jeremy. "Trump issues defiant apology for lewd remarks -- then goes on the attack", CNN (October 8, 2016). ".... comments Trump made in a 2005 'Access Hollywood,' where he bragged about being able to force himself on women against their will because of his celebrity." DelReal, Jose and Johnson, Jenna. [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/22/trump-threatening-nearly-one-dozen-sexual-assault-accusers-vows-to-sue/ "Trump, threatening nearly a dozen sexual assault accusers, vows to sue"], Washington Post (October 22, 2016). "a leaked hot mic conversation in which the Republican nominee bragged about being able to touch women because he is a 'star.'" Diaz, Daniella. "Trump: Clinton is behind sexual assault allegations", CNN (October 19, 2016). "Trump bragged about being able to grope and kiss women" Diamond, Jeremy. "Trump: I'd 'love' to fight Biden", CNN (October 26, 2016). "he bragged about being able to grope women because he is a celebrity" Diaz, Daniella. [ http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/joe-biden-anthony-weiner-emails-hillary-clinton/ "Biden on Weiner: 'I'm not a big fan'"], CNN (October 29, 2016). "The leak of a 2005 hot-mic video two days before the second debate in which Trump bragged about being able to grope women led to Clinton’s biggest single-day gain of the past four weeks." Tartar, Andre and Tioruririne, Adam. "Trump, Clinton Double Down on Their Strategies: Final Debate By the Numbers", Bloomberg News (October 20, 2016). "remarks Trump made in a leaked 2005 conversation, in which he bragged about being able to grope women because of his fame." "Retired Military Officials Condemn Donald Trump Over Issue of Sexual Assault", Fortune (October 18, 2016). "last week’s release of a 2005 video in which he bragged about being able to exploit women sexually." Langley, Monica. [ http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-angrily-denies-allegations-of-groping-points-finger-at-media-and-clinton-campaign-1476384833 "Donald Trump Prepares New Attack on Media, Clinton"], Wall Street Journal (October 13, 2016). "Trump bragged about being able to grope and otherwise touch women without consent or consequences." Lesniewski, Niels. "Heck Hopes to Mimic Reid in Nevada But for GOP", Roll Call (October 15, 2016). "he bragged about being able to 'do anything' to women 'when you're a star,' including 'grab them' by the genitals" Jaffa, Alexandra and Gutters, Hasani. "Rudy Giuliani on Donald Trump's Crass Comments: 'Both Sides Have Sinned'", NBC News (October 9, 2016). The accusations come after the release of a 2005 tape earlier this month in which Trump bragged about being able to grope or kiss women due to because he was a celebrity. Savransky, Rebecca. "Trump: 'Nothing ever happened' with accusers", The Hill (newspaper) (October 15, 2016). |
Thanks for your consider. IHTS ( talk) 08:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this limit of TOC to 3 levels [13] is good.
This is a complicated article with lots of details. A detailed TOC, like a good introduction, makes it easier to figure out what the article covers.
The TOC limit 3 makes it difficult for the reader to figure out what's covered by the article. For example, it makes it harder to find "Sexual misconduct allegations". A bare mention of "Political positions" doesn't tell the reader that the entry deals with social issues, economic issues, healthcare issues, etc.
In contrast, the Business Career section outlines all of his businesses.
Is there anybody else here who would like to revert it? -- Nbauman ( talk) 20:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
you must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page. As I reverted your change to a longstanding situation, the onus is on you to obtain consensus for an expanded TOC. — JFG talk 05:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@
Nbauman: You wrote: with the TOC limits, the "Sexual misconduct allegations" became invisible.
This is wrong; they didn't "become" invisible because of the TOC limit, they always were, by virtue of being written months later. You also wrote: The TOC is organized in such a way as to hide them in the body of the text
, implying intent to hide. I say there's no intent to hide anything; there was a long TOC on a {{
very long}} article and it was accordingly limited in depth 6 months ago. Recently this groping affair emerged and was placed under the "Presidential campaign" section, so it was not mentioned in the TOC. (Note in passing that contrary to your assertions I was not involved in adding this content or discussing its hierarchical placement.) Now you and Bastun argue that this incident is worth mentioning in the TOC and I argue that the TOC would become unwieldy if we lifted the limit. Clearly I won't convince you and you won't convince me. Unless other editors weigh in strongly one way or another, we should leave the matter to rest. —
JFG
talk 01:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe we should cover the Trump email controversy somewhere in the article. As Newsweek notes, "Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders." [14] -- Tataral ( talk) 20:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
This again follows the pattern of: 1) Verified material covered by multiple reliable sources gets added to an article. 2) As it's perceived as being negative to Trump, it gets removed. 3) "Debate" follows, with various policies quoted, but no clear consensus can obviously emerge so partisan editors effectively keep out the negative material prior to the election. I've not checked the equivalent Clinton article, but I'm sure it's talk page doesn't include contributions from the same editors who are here quoting WP:RECENTISM, WP:BALASP and similar, in relation to the latest "FBI investigating Clinton for emails she didn't send" story. I find it hard to believe this is what Arbcom actually intended. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
FWIW - Concerning any controversies, both this article & Hillary Clinton, should be left alone until after the prez election. GoodDay ( talk) 18:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
It looks like someone has created Donald Trump email controversy. It seems like that information should be included into this article or merged into Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The standalone article seems very weak and unlikely to have any legs. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey all. I removed the (short) paragraph in this edit, citing BLP/UNDUE concerns, and I noted that I had also looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump email controversy, where a consensus right now is difficult to see--but there's a lot of delete votes, and a number of merge votes, and some legitimate concerns, which strengthened my in my opinion. My invocation of the BLP is not unequivocal; it's a judgment call, and the moment you all have a decent consensus here on what to do with it, I will not stand in the way. This is going to be a matter of editorial consensus, so good luck with it.
BTW, my edit summary was so long that I had to remove "Undid edit by Volunteer Marek", and I didn't want to make this personal anyway--so let me just say congrats that Auburn was ranked in the top ten. Drmies ( talk) 18:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe that this removal of the comma I added is incorrect. See e.g. here.
The relative clause here is non-restrictive, i.e. the sentence could equivalently be split into two: "Trump is ... a politician. He is the Republican nominee..."
The relative clause cannot meaningfully be restrictive in this context, given the combination of the indefinite article in the main clause and the definite article in the relative clause. In other words, you could say "the politician who is the Republican nominee", but you can't say "a politician who is the Republican nominee" because there is by definition only one politician who is the Republican nominee.
Maybe nobody cares, but I would think that the first sentence of a very high-profile article ought to be grammatically correct.
-- Money money tickle parsnip ( talk) 15:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
All major betting markets have him at 97-99% (the difference from 100% largely due to fees & commissions). Do we wait for AP to announce? Aaaaaabbbbb111 ( talk) 05:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump won the electoral college vote with 276 votes as of 7:44 am, Greenwich Time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorigoat ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
In the tape, he says as a star women let him do it. That implies consent, not forced action.
Tai Hai Chen ( talk) 07:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump won the presidential election. Add more stuff in this wiki! Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 08:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't it premature to call Donald Trump President-Elect until the Electoral College elections occur in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. I thought there was something in the constitution about that where yes he is elected by popular vote but in order to be the President-Elect he needs to be elected by the Electoral College first and then and only then can he be called President-Elect and then upon swearing-in President of the United States. YborCityJohn ( talk) 08:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
It may be technically/legally correct to say he is not really the president-elect until the Electoral College has met and acted. But at Wikipedia we follow Reliable Sources, and sources are unanimous in referring to him as president-elect. [24] [25] [26] -- MelanieN ( talk) 09:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
YborCityJohn I just looked through the text of both Article 2 and the Twelfth Amendment, and neither one use the word "President-elect" nor make reference to when that title applies. Both items simply specify how the US Electoral College chooses the President and Vice-President, and when terms take effect, etc. etc. That's all. RegistryKey (RegEdit) 11:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
In the sentence "At 70, he will be the oldest person to ever become a first-term president, surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he won the election in 1980." we are juxtaposing winning (Reagan 1980) and becaming president (Trump 2017 ["will be"]). Strictly speaking it should be:
The first option is more durable, as — gramatically — it will still be valid after taking office. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 15:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
It's really really long right now, especially the part about the sexual misconduct allegations (not even proven)... It's almost completely copied from the main article. The taxes bit is also a bit long. Should we trim it a bit? User1937 ( talk) 15:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
If Trump wins I made his President-Elect template.
Donald Trump | |
---|---|
President-elect of the United States | |
Assuming office January 20, 2017 | |
Vice President | Mike Pence (elect) |
Succeeding | Barack Obama |
Personal details | |
Born | Donald John Trump June 14, 1946 New York City, New York, U.S.A. |
Political party | Republican |
Spouse | Melania Trump |
Children |
|
Residence(s) | Manhattan, New York, U.S.A.] |
Alma mater | |
Occupation | Businessman |
Signature | |
Website |
Official website Campaign website |
Residence and occupation will change. It is assumed that the president is an American. Trump may have dual nationality as his mother was from the UK. Religion is no longer the defining feature it once was. I would leave out anything that is unimportant or ambiguous. TFD ( talk) 06:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
For people born in 1946 British nationality was acquired by descent through the legitimate male line. You didn't get British nationality by having a British-born mother when you were born in the US to an American father. Trump is certainly no British citizen; the UK Parliament wouldn't debate banning one of its own citizens from the country for hate speech. -- Tataral ( talk) 07:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Are we removing this after today? Seems pretty weird to let it stay there, Obama doesn't have a "policies" section. User1937 ( talk) 05:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The opening sentence of the article contains a possible error. That sentence begins, "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television producer, and politician . . . " That last word is incorrect. If Trump is elected president, he will be the first to attain that office who had never served in any prior political office or the military. That means that he won't become a "politician" unless he wins--and only then after he is inaugurated. And if he loses, of course, he will remain, as he himself says, a political outsider. In his speeches he has even declared plainly, "I am not a politician." It would, therefore, have been more correct to have written "political candidate" instead of "politician" in that sentence.
Fredwords ( talk) 6:45 PM Eastern, November 8, 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Can this be added? Also this article: List of United States Presidents by net worth should be updated. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 08:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
He still hasn't released his tax returns (the only presidential candidate in recent years not to do so), so no, we don't. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Since all articles about previous Presidents have religion in their infoboxes, I suggest adding:
Presbyterian
to the infobox. Or delete that parameter from all those articles? Ernio48 ( talk) 11:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ernio, I added exactly that this morning and someone inexplicably removed it.
I agree it should be re-added, however I do not want an edit war over something so empirical but also something so minor. But it belongs in the infobox like for any other President. -- OettingerCroat ( talk) 22:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
User1937 ( talk) 18:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
It is time to start working on a sub section or something on how the world reacts to the results, for instance, how he is first and foremost congratulated by far right figures ( Far right first to congratulate Trump on historic upset: Around the world rightwing nationalists and far-right leaders react with glee as Republican candidate wins US election). We also need to revisit the issue at some point of how his position in the political landscape should be described; certainly there is a strong case for describing him as a far right politician in the first paragraph of the lead, based on coverage in reliable sources and his political positions and how they are assessed in reliable sources. -- Tataral ( talk) 09:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
<Personal attacks and BLP violations removed.>-- BowlAndSpoon ( talk) 10:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The sexual accusations are all rumors, NOTHING has been proven. This should be removed, who's with me? User1937 ( talk) 15:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
There is consensus to include this after weeks of extensive discussion. -- Tataral ( talk) 17:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Do not see specifics and sources for this statement, "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false." Add specific examples and sources or remove it.
The infobox says that he was Democrat prior to 1987, but the Political Affiliation section either isn't clear on his pre-1987 standing or seems to suggest that he in fact leaned Republican. - 2601:204:C901:E73C:2DA8:481D:BBFC:FCA ( talk) 06:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
This edit seems problematic to me. Is there any substantive reason for it? There was no edit-warring today about this material, and much if it was added material, not even changing what was already there. An admission of criminal behavior is very serious stuff, and we ought to be neutral and accurate about such stuff, no? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
It's all in the main article, let's just link to it the way it's linked in Barack Obama's second infobox. User1937 ( talk) 16:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
So I'm asking for consensus. User1937 ( talk) 17:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, I asked for another consensus above this (Presidential campaign, 2016 should be shortened), but you all aren't commenting in that? It seems like I only get consensus going when I go through with edits here :/ User1937 ( talk) 17:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Simplistic wordings such as "he defeated Hillary Clinton in the general election" need to be reworded as Clinton won a majority of the votes [33], while Trump's candidates won a majority in the Electoral College, which is expected to appoint a president later. -- Tataral ( talk) 17:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Tataral -- Just follow the cites and you'll see that it's not
WP:DUE coverage ... I'm seeing it's about 20 "Donald wins" or "surprise win" to any mention of popular vote (googling, ~75:4 million), and a lot of the popular vote mentions seem afterthought to 'Hillary lost' such as 'Hillary lost, but may still win the popular vote'. So the wording to reflect the prominence is 'Trump surprise win'.
Markbassett (
talk) 01:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
"he will be the oldest person to ever become a assume the presidency."
Fierogt ( talk) 02:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Trump#Requested move 9 November 2016 There is a move request ongoing, I just thought I would let you know. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
On
Donald Trump filmography, it opens "Donald Trump is an American actor, television personality..." should it state "actor" on this article? At most, it should say "television personality". ∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
13:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
All the following statements seem to be really unneccesary right now in the lead, meticulous DETAILS, and past incidents (media gossip) during a presidential campaign which finally had no influence on the final results of the Presidential election:
1.-"Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false" (Biased, speculative)
2.-"On October 7, a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women; multiple women accused him of forcibly doing so shortly thereafter." (God, already included in the body content, besides, there is a whole article about this gossip, no need for this specific incident in the lead)
In my opinion, there is no place for this chit chat - (difficult to corroborate) allegations in the lede of an article about a Head of State. This is an encyclopedia and all those statements now turned into pure conjectures and "dirty trick campaign" stuff. Ajax1995 ( talk) 16:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I assume someone will add information about the current Protests going on? Seems important to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleylife ( talk • contribs) 09:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I suppose this may be out-of-place in this thread, but it seems almost as if this biography is being used to "protest Trump" as well - nowhere near Neutral POV. It is not the function of an *encyclopedia* to criticize individuals and their actions. In many cases this goes far beyond what is normally said about a political candidate, one who has never been convicted of a criminal act. Dfoofnik ( talk) 18:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The general election section says the following: "Trump's win simultaneously marked the first time that Republicans gained control over both the White House and Congress since 1928."
The GOP controlled the WH/Senate/House during the GWBush years. If there's some other meaning intended, it needs to be clarified, otherwise it's flat-out wrong (more specifically, the cited Fortune article got it wrong). Aldaryx ( talk) 01:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The wording is correct, it says "gained".
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first line 'Donald John Trump (/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, reality television star, and' change the word "star" to host or presenter. In the U.S. ther term 'star" connotates a professional actor or performer. Changing to host will pnot denigrate Trump or his role. Smarkham01 ( talk) 03:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This BLP presently says:
“ | He also speaks of his efforts to seduce a married woman, saying he "moved on her very heavily." [1] | ” |
The cited source says very clearly that those efforts were unsuccessful, and so I suggest this instead:
“ | He also speaks of his unsuccessful efforts to seduce a married woman, saying: "I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it....I moved on her very heavily." [1] | ” |
Without this correction, we suggest that he "moved heavily" in a forcible way (especially given what the previous sentences of the BLP currently say about forcible kissing and groping). The cited source says, "In that audio, Trump discusses a failed attempt to seduce a woman, whose full name is not given in the video. 'I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it,' Trump is heard saying."
References
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the line about Clinton winning the popular vote, as this count is still being conducted and the numbers are not finalized. This is not yet a fact, and should not be a part of Wikipedia until it is a fact. This reflects a discussion and change on Hillary Clinton. {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)