Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 72

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Ghostwriters in the sky

The lead now says, "With the help of ghostwriters, he published several books (most notably The Art of the Deal)...." But the name of Tony Schwartz appears on the cover of that book, was there someone else ghostwriting it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point. You're not a "ghostwriter" if you are credited. Maybe we should change it to co-authors. --MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Article and RS state "ghostwriter". SPECIFICO talk 04:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Most refer to Schwartz as a co-author, not a ghostwriter, so I have edited the lead accordingly. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Schwartz is variously described in RS as the co-author, author, or ghostwriter. Why "author"? Because we know who he is, unlike an unknown ghostwriter. In reality, "ghostwriter" is probably the most accurate term for all the other books attributed to Trump. He doesn't have a single "author gene" or ability in his body, and we know he likes to take credit for things done by other people, even "proclaiming" national holidays long since established by other Presidents. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Anywant, you can"t just insert your POV when the article corpus and the cited source say otherwise. C'mon. SPECIFICO talk 04:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Darn! I can't? I was just about to include all that. Shucks. This article by Jane Mayer is one of the best about the book and about Trump. A very interesting read. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The body of this BLP says, "Trump has published numerous books. His first published book in 1987 was Trump: The Art of the Deal, written by ghostwriter Tony Schwartz". The footnote is "Mayer, Jane (July 25, 2016). "Donald Trump's Ghostwriter Tells All". The New Yorker. Retrieved June 19, 2017." Per dictionary.com a ghostwriter is “a person who writes one or numerous speeches, books, articles, etc., for another person who is named as or presumed to be the author.”[1]

Schwartz is named on the cover of the book,[2] and he's described as co-author by CNN, The Hill, MSNBC, People, Huffpo, The Independent, BBC, and many more. The word "co-author" was removed from this lead during the past two days, and there is no consensus to remove it, so I intend to put it back per DS. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

When secondary sources inaccurately represent primary sources, we should accept the primary source. In this case, it is apparent that the secondary source is incorrect about the ghostwriter, because the book clearly credits him as a co-author. TFD (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That's the oppose of what we do. We don't do our own interpretation of primary sources - we rely on secondary sources to do that interpretation. According to our article on ghostwriter (very trustworthily doesn't have sources): In some cases, ghostwriters are allowed to share credit. For example, a common method is to put the client/author's name on a book cover as the main byline (by Author's Name) and then to put the ghostwriter's name underneath it (as told to Ghostwriter's Name). Sometimes this is done in lieu of pay or in order to decrease the amount of payment to the book ghostwriter for whom the credit has its own intrinsic value. Also, the ghostwriter can be cited as a coauthor of a book, or listed in the movie or film credits when having ghostwritten the script or screenplay for a film production.

But it does appear that sources are mixed on whether Schwartz was a ghostwriter. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the ratio of mixing matters. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Anywant, you just reinserted your POV without demonstrating consensus here on talk. Please undo yourself. RS tell us overwhelmingly that these books have been written by ghostwriters, and your insinuation about citing Wikipedia as a reference is an especially lame straw man. This article has the consensus requirement and the onus is on you for the edit you just made. Claiming the opposite in your edit summary doesn't cut it. Don't try to tell us that, contrary to the RS citation, POTUS sat down and authored half a dozen thick books. That's wildass OR, as I would have thought you'd know. Pinging @Galobtter, BullRangifer, MelanieN, Anythingyouwant, and The Four Deuces: SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Haven't we been through this a million times? I don't need consensus to restore longstanding content, if there's no consensus to remove it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Longstanding content is treated differently under discretionary sanctions than new content; the sanctions are meant to favor the status quo and stabilize the article, not to let anyone delete whatever longstanding info they want to delete even if there is no consensus to delete it. As one admin put it: “If you REMOVE longstanding content from that article, that removal is an ‘edit’ within the meaning of this rule, and if someone reinstates the longstanding wording, you must not revert (remove it again) without consensus.”[3] Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Now you're bobbing and weaving. You bring in 3 random cherrypicked sources to support the ludicrous claim that POTUS is an author and then you contradict your POV in the article by saying that the ghostwriter is sometimes called a ghostwriter? It was almost better when you were flatly disregarding the excellent citation that was there before you scrambled to cover your denial of the reference. Meanwhile, there is no consensus for this encyclopedia to claim that POTUS wrote or co-wrote six lengthy books. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant is correct as to process. The lead has said "co-authored" since 11 December,[4] so a disputed removal requires consensus. Perhaps now we can focus on content and not on contributors. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have raised a content and sourcing issue. There's no good reason to rewrite text to go against what's in the cited RS (New Yorker/Mayer) and then hastily cobble together some other random cherrypicked stuff when somebody -- gee -- noticed that the article text is no longer verified WP:V by the cited source. They're ghostwritten books. That's what bigtime busy action-oriented executives like POTUS do. They hire ghostwriters -- the best -- and cut them in for a big incentive so they have a stake in the success of the book. Why is this being treated like some kind of disgrace that must be concealed at all cost??? Using a ghostwriter just shows that he had better things to do with his time than try to write a book! #Executive #valuabletime SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Schwartz is named on the cover of the book,[5] and he's described as co-author by CNN, The Hill, MSNBC, People, Huffpo, The Independent, BBC, and many more. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll generally take a position opposite an editor who points to one cited source as effectively end-of-discussion and dismisses three other cited sources as cherry-picking. That's what I'd call an anti-argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, let's stick to the facts here. The text was changed without any alternative source that contradicted the excellent recent New Yorker citation. OK. Only after I pointed out that the edit had departed from the cited source did the other 3 sources suddenly appear. And you still would need to address whether those other 3 are representative of the weight of the RS reporting on this (hint: they're not) or whether they were just super quickie cherrypicks to silence a discussion about an edit that denied the RS reference. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Editors may improve citations at any time, even during a discussion, and they should be able to do so without being accused of gaming. Your AGF needs a tune-up, especially with regard to your longtime nemesis Anythingyouwant. (hint: they're not) - Fine. Prove it. You're the editor fighting for a change to lomngstanding content, so the burden is on you. Exsqueeze me if I don't just take your word for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your personal fantasies about other editors are not welcome. Anywant and I get along great. She just shouldn't be changing the text so that it contradicts the source. If you disagree, I suggest you bone up on the 5 pillars. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I’ll come out of the closet a little bit, and say that I’m a he. (I hope that doesn’t spoil anyone’s fantasies.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss thought you had a Fatal Attraction thing going with one of the boys here. #shucks. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Administrator note It may not seem like it to any of the members in this heated discussion, but to me it looks like you are all working towards the same goal. Please try to stay away from commenting on your fellow editors, and please just try to advance these discussions further by using sourcing and logic based in our policies. We all want this article to be as accurate as it possibly can be, even if the topic can carry partisan emotions at times. Let's try not to get angry at each other just because we might be angry about any particular idea. I can assure you, I wouldn't be letting anyone edit here if I thought their intent was nefarious or to push their own POV. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

HuffPost, Independent Journal Review, Salon, The Independent, ABC News, PBS, and the others linked above. Five days earlier Mayer herself used both words in The New Yorker.
There is no clear RS preference for either word regarding Schwartz and Deal, so I have no problem with using the dictionary as a reliable source for vocabulary for the purposes of the lead, while giving a nod to "ghostwriter" in the Books section. I support current status quo. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

2000 presidential campaign

The previous section (and mentions in the lede) of his 2000 presidential campaign has been removed. This is highly unusual for an American political page. Off the top of my head,, compare Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, who have sections and mentions for their unsuccessful presidential campaigns. Plumber (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The 2000 events are still mentioned in the article body, in the second paragraph of the "Political career up to 2015" section. This aborted campaign has not been deemed significant enough for inclusion in the lede. Also, Reagan and Nixon were seasoned politicians by the time they ran for President, and they did so in the primaries of a major party. — JFG ^talk 23:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Part of Trump's position is that he is a fresh start, an anti-politician, as opposed to the tired old hacks who have spent years in the Senate etc. But the fact is that he has had several goes at the job. I think that is indicative of the contradictions in his presidency. Not to mention that he recently claimed that he won on his first try, and removing the mention from the lede smacks of legitimising this false claim. --Pete (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but all he did was form an exploratory committee in 2000, dropped out when they didn't agree to hand him the nom on a platter, and eventually "won" two states in the Reform party primary post-dropout. It is really a footnote in his biography, rather than a notable milestone moment, so I think not being in the lede is a good idea. ValarianB (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So you favour legitimising his claim that he won on his first go? --Pete (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Since we have a substantial article on Trump's 2000 campaign, I am surprised it is given very little attention in this BLP. It is briefly mentioned in "Political career up to 2015", but the relevant article doesn't even get a link where you would expect to find it (although it is linked to in the "popular culture" section and the template at the foot of the article). Trump's claim he won on his first go is obviously a lie, and it sure seems as if this article is doing a pretty good job of backing that falsehood up. I do not think it rises to the importance of being mentioned in the lede, but it is currently given short shrift in the body of the article. Trump's claims that he is "not a politician" have also been similarly backed up by the article, particularly with the tortured construction of the opening sentences of the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

New Racial views section doesn't have Trump's racial views

Am I the only one who notices that the new "Racial views" section doesn't actually explain Trump's racial views? Instead, it's a list of racist or perceived as racist statements and actions. How about rename it to something else? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is called Donald Trump racial views, and that is presumably why it is called that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The only way to know what his racial views are is by observation of his words and deeds. Reliable sources have been doing that for 45 years, and here we are. I guess we could consider adding that he once said "“I am the least racist person that you have ever met; I am the least racist person.", but I'm not sure that's worth the space.- MrX 20:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: If the article Donald Trump racial views doesn't cover Trump's racial views, then it's wrong, too.

How about renaming the section something like "Allegations of racism" or something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The current heading is far more neutral. The section is not about allegations; it's about a documented history of racially-motivated actions and racially-provocative remarks that have been exhaustively analyzed, and condemned internationally by 50+ nations.- MrX 21:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Do you think that the section explains Trump's racial views? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: No, nor does it attempt to explain his views. The section heading introduces the subject, but for brevity, it doesn't explain every angle. Technically, it should be History of racially-provocative remarks and actions perceived as racially-motivated, 1973 to present. That, of course, would be jarring, so instead we choose a short, somewhat vague heading that neutrally describes what is covered in the section.- MrX 22:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

AQfK, can I just check that you understand the difference between "racial" and "racist"? --Pete (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No, because it has nothing to do with my point. Read my OP if you don't know what I mean. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Your OP sparked my query. I'd just like to understand where you are coming from, in the interests of clarity. Are you able to answer my question? It's okay if you think both words mean the same thing, that gives an insight into your position, and we aren't talking at cross-purposes, which just leads to confusion. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the problem here really that the subject of the section is "racist views" not "racial views" but we are not confronting our uneasiness with such a definitive heading? SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think the problem is that we are conflating racial views and racist views. Trump's racism is borne out of his racialism, and both "isms" are receiving coverage in the sub article and the main BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are long strains of racialism in world cultures and, with respect to this article, Euro-American culture. Some of the racialist views in Western culture are now recognized as having been mistaken but not racist in the current sense. But racialist principles and speculations are still used to rationalize racist hate speech and public policy narratives. Trump, being a man of action and not particularly prone to inquiry or reflection, appears to speak from a long-discredited racialist POV while also espousing racist views and advocating racist policies. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually you just conflated racial with racialism. The former is a neutral term that simply means pertaining to race (his views on race) where the latter is belief system that for many is tantamount to racism (a racialist would support segregation, for example). GCG (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not following that one. Trump is a racialist. He projects characteristics on people based on racial categories. Much racist thinking is rationalized by false racialist pseudo-theories. SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My comment was targeted at scjessey. Trump is a racialist in your opinion (and mine too, FWIW), but since he would deny it (assuming he understood what it was), LABEL applies. GCG (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@GreatCaesarsGhost: WP:LABEL doesn't apply if there are plenty of reliable sources, and the guideline only says "avoid". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we are not confronting our uneasiness with WP:LABELing someone a racist. To some extent, we are euphemizing the topic.- MrX 22:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that wP:LABEL applies, particularly as this is a biography of a living person. TFD (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Quest, I don't understand what you want the article to do differently. It's already been explained that "Racial views", while imprecise, is preferred over a much longer and more complex title, something explaining that we can't know what is in his head so we are interpreting his words and actions. Are you complaining because we don't call him racist in Wikipedia's voice? We cite various sources calling him racist four times in this brief three-paragraph item. Isn't that enough for you? --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Even David Duke is not called a racist in WP's voice, and he's a lot less debatable. I think it's a reasonable application of WP:LABEL that we allow RS to use a word that we won't use ourselves. GCG (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump is not called a racist in WP's voice either, but nice try at a strawman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

VM, I don't know who you are accusing of strawman. I pointed out that we don't call him racist in WP's voice, and GCG agreed. I don't see any strawman argument there. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing in an edit conflict. MelanieN was probing for the root of Quest's concern and GCG replied with a logical point. Let's reserve the word "strawman" for actual logical fallacies. ~Awilley (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The straw man allegation was a straw man.  :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think we do or should call him a “racist” as per LABEL. I think we should also avoid the term racialism, except in quotes from RS. And yes, we are euphemizing the topic. But, that’s probably necessary until a larger majority of the population understands the inherent problems with racial judgements. OTOH, if we could name this anything we wanted, I’d prefer something like “xenophobic attitudes”. It goes beyond race. But that gets into a character formation diagnosis, which we can’t do. Just can’t think of a better title that doesn’t run afoul of LABEL. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• I just want to remind everyone that the latest statements attributed to Trump are coming from one source and is not corroborated by anyone else. In addition, Durbin has done this in the past, in 2013 he claimed negative statements against President Obama which was then denied by the White House and others present. [12] We should not be using this statement as a major BLP issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

1. We have a source.
2. Others in the same meeting initially confirmed the statement.
3. Trump has not explicitly denied it, though his language over time trends that way.
4. The timing suggests construction of partisan narratives.
5. Attempts to discredit sources are an all too familiar political tactic. And from this particular direction, one that is almost mandatory.
6. There seems to be no definitive way of proving what language was or wasn't used, and given the he-said-she-said "discussion" over the KJU quote, it might be a matter of who is yelling the loudest.

Regardless of the above, the wording is now part of the Trump legend, given the extremely wide exposure. --Pete (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, but this doesn’t appear to be true. WaPo said that their reporting was based on several sources and Durbin only later verified this. O3000 (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

And Lindsey Graham tacitly confirmed it.[13] Trump's denial is not credible given his record (see § False and misleading statements). Tom Cotton and David Perdue's inability to "recall" is not at all convincing.- MrX 02:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I just want to say seriously that I think many of the political articles at Wikipedia are shitholes, and there are also many countries where I would not want to live because they are too. That's why people want to leave them and come here. My two uses thus far in this comment of the word "shithole" are not at all racist. So context needs to be considered. And motives. What Trump thinks about all this stuff I know not, and neither does anyone at this talk page as far as I can tell. If we take all the most educated and skilled people from countries in dire need of them, it's not good for those countries; what does Trump think of that? Nor is it good for us to become a safety valve for those countries to release their most unwanted inhabitants; what does Trump think of that? I and most others believe that people who desperately want to come here from shithole countries should get some extra sympathy and consideration; what does Trump think of that? This BLP doesn't give the slightest clue. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't give the slightest clue because Trump hasn't given the slightest clue. I have a feeling I know what his answers would be to your three questions, but that would be OR. As for whether it was racist for him to apply that term to the countries he did, we leave that determination up to the Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is that Trump was complaining about the people who come from shitholes, not the shitholes themselves, which is why people immediately called it a racist thing to say. Saying it in a bipartisan meeting on immigration in the Oval Office was pretty stupid too. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need the screen cap of a tweet in the Social media section?

Resolved

Text: "My use of social media is not Presidential – it’s MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL. Make America Great Again!"

A 2017 tweet on Trump's verified Twitter account

References

A screen captured image of a Tweet doesn't seem to convey much encyclopedic information. Is it really worth the 786 characters it takes up in the article? - MrX 13:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Trump- 'Modern Day Presidential'.png --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The image was deleted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it is "worth" the characters it takes up. How would one calculate that? But it illustrates the president's colloquial approach to speech, which in my opinion is the defining characteristic of the man. This is seen in what is said as well as the means by which it is said—the Twitter account makes for presidential communications that are very frequent and often on very minor details of the duties of his office. Additionally, the sloganeering embodied in "make America great again" via a Twitter feed well-illustrates the crassness that many commentators observe in the current American presidency. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't need it. And there may be better examples anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not see how an image of words conveys anything of value to the reader. ValarianB (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The "image of words" is more direct than our description of it could ever be. It is easier to present the "image of words" than it would be to find alternative words to describe the "image of words" that is depicted. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd say a image wouldn't be as useful as, "Trump responded to criticism of his twitter usage with "..."" The image doesn't connect with the paragraph clearly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No. A picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words, not 16. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It couldn't be more on-topic. It is an illustration of Trump addressing his use of social media. What have we chosen to title that section? You guessed it—Social media.
The criticism is correct that this is just an image of words, but as an image of words it breaks up the otherwise sea of words, and its ability to communicate is not compromised by it being merely an image. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You simply describe it using, well, words. How hard is this to understand? Using actual words rather than a screenshot of a tweet. ValarianB (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

First name of Trump's attorney

This was one of the items being edit warred over. Let’s work it out. The article originally had it as Sheri Dillon. User:TheValeyard twice changed it to Sherri Dillon. User:Anthony22 twice changed it back it to Sheri Dillon, citing romper.com Romper.com does not appear to be a reliable source; more of a celebrity gossip blog. However, multiple other sources spell it Sheri [14][15][16] so that is clearly what we should use. I will add a better reference and the issue should be settled. See, folks, this is how to resolve differences of opinion: bring it to the talk page. Don’t just keep reverting each other, particularly not at an article under DS, which can very quickly lead to sanctions. If you have other unresolved disagreements, you are expected to bring them here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't catch the double-R, was mainly focused on the needless verbiage. TheValeyard (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Could we just remove the first name. The surname is not used elsewhere and they are not that public a figure. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. Removing the first name would leave "His attorney Dillon said that...". We don't do that unless the full name has previously been given. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually that was what I was suggesting, but now that I see it being used in a sentence it doesn't sound as good an idea as I thought. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's contrary to the first 7 words at MOS:SURNAME. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2018

Donald Trump is clearly shorter than Barrack Obama (check out photos of them together) and therefore less than 185cm tall and not 191cm tall. 203.217.150.67 (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No reply needed, per WP:NOTFORUM. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

I just want to know who the author of the Donald Trump article is. 2607:FCC8:F8C7:9B00:546C:65B8:D64:E42A (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no one "author". The article has been created by multiple people over the course of many years and is still in the process of being written. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A list of editors by edit count can be found here, but be aware that not all edits are created equal. For example I'm listed as #4 but a majority of my edits are matters of form rather than substance, and many editors below me on the list have made far more substantial contributions. This list can be generated for any article by clicking on "Revision history statistics" on the article's page history page. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting - and not always meaningful. The user listed as making the most text contribution to the article is an IP vandal - who gets credit for adding 200,000+ bytes simply because they once restored the entire article. But it is interesting to note that 21,910 registered accounts and an additional 2,643 anonymous accounts have contributed to the article, over a period of eight years. In other words, to answer the IP’s question, the article has 24,000+ authors. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You know what Mark Twain said about statistics. Before our edit conflict, I was about to say that it says 5,482 editors have edited the article since its inception 14 years ago, so I guess we're looking at different numbers. Perhaps it would suffice to say shitload. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You are right, I am wrong. 5,482 different editors. The pie chart I looked at was actually the number of edits by registered users (89%) and IPs (11%). That must have been in the old days before the article was protected. (Protection was occasional in the early days and became permanent in 2015.) And you are right about it being created 14 years ago (almost to the day). I guess I'd better not try to have anything to do with numbers today. --MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll just place this here without a comment on who's #2 and #3 (oops, is that a comment?). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

(Noting that it's the same statistics for this talk page.) If the non-comment is that MelanieN and I talk too much, I'm in good company. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

LOL, Neil! Touché! --MelanieN, adding yet another edit to the count (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I just found it amusing that the first two editors replying to this thread are the top two currently active editors for this talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, turns out I wrote about 5% of the article text and 10% of talk page discussions. Perhaps I should get a life? — JFG ^talk 23:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Nah, what would you want a life for? I hear they're overrated. (And now we have #2, #3, and #4 of the currently active editors in this thread. What kept you?) MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus 23 copy edit

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.

---

#Current consensus #23:

He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges.

Proposed:

Citing security concerns, he ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries; a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges.

• Support - Even when my laptop screen is relatively clean, semicolons are difficult to distinguish from commas, at least in the font I use. Therefore the current content can be mistaken for: He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries; citing security concerns, a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges. and the change would remove some unnecessary ambiguity. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support better also in that the "citing security concerns" should be next to "he" as it is relating to that not the ban. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It's a little clearer.- MrX 🖋 17:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support It's definitely an improvement. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Reads better. — JFG ^talk 23:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Flows better. Doesn't feel so much like a run on sentence. EstablishedCalculus 05:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Less choppy and it flows better ParaNerd023 (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I've amended current consensus 23 based on this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

His initial

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 propose Trump's article title be changed to "Donald J. Trump". The official White House website refers to the president as "Donald J. Trump" along with all of his official social media so shouldn't his article title be edited to reflect this? Many past presidents have their initial in their article title for example John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush etc. As those are the names they officially went by so the same should be the case for Trump's article. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Those people were primarily known by and referred to with the middle initial. That is not the case here, what he titles himself in an official capacity is not all that important. TheValeyard (talk)

Umm yes it is. The official title he gives himself in the White House IS important. Plus Donald has always referred to himself as Donald J. Trump on almost everything even before assuming the presidency. If he changed his name to say Ben after assuming the presidency he would be President Ben Trump and the article title would need to be changed to reflect that. He is officially referred to as "Donald J. Trump" by the Whitehouse. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If he changed his name to Ben, we would change it here after it became how the rest of the world referred to him, not at the time he changed it. That's how all BLP articles are titled. This is the subject of #Current consensus item 12, and I see no reason to revisit it—especially considering the OP's lack of knowledge of article titling policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Which would make Wikipedia lose all the little credibility it has left if they can't even refer to the President of the United States (pretty much the most famous man in the world) by his official White House recognized title. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If he's the most famous person man in the world, I think people will figure out who the article is about. But, we just go with reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• This has been discussed at considerable length. Please see WP:COMMONNAME. We go by what he is commonly referred to, and it seems only himself and some of his supporters call him with his middle initial. Meanwhile, John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush are widely known in reliable sources and popular culture with their middle initial (So much so that the latter is even called "Dubya"). NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• And, if you want to look at it logically, it’s hardly surprising that the Bushes are referred to with middle initials as there were two of them; and as for JFK, Catholics sometimes use middle initials (or even first initials and middle names) as so many are named after apostles or saints and there are only so many. Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about this as we use common names. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Concur with prior comments. JJ.Jarrett, you may want to review WP:OFFICIAL, which is an explanatory supplement to our WP:AT titling policy, saying that official names of a subject (person or thing) do not carry more weight than the name they are most commonly called. Among the examples given to illustrate the prevalence of "common names" over official names, we see "Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)" and "United Kingdom (not: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)", to which we could add "United States (not: United states of America)" or "Robert Mueller (not: Robert Swan Mueller III)". I hope this adequately answers your concerns about "the little credibility [Wikipedia] has left". — JFG ^talk 12:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

So basically the president's name is decided by the media not the white house? Also George H W, was always referred to as simply George Bush but that changed after his son got elected. Why didn't they just leave it as George Bush then? There was a W to separate the 2 already. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The name he is referred to in common, everyday speech - not just "the media" - trumps (ha ha) the legal name on the top of his stationery. You question has been asked and answered, I don't see what else can be elucidated on the matter. ValarianB (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the others who have spoken on this question. We use the title that most closely matches the term that readers will use to search for the article; that readers are influenced by the form of the subject's name predominantly used in the media is obvious, but irrelevant. "Donald J. Trump" as well as some other variants are already established as redirects to the current title. Consensus is clearly established against the proposal. General Ization ^Talk 13:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, this is also supported by pageview analysis. For the 3 month period October-December 2017, Donald Trump received average monthly page views of more than 1.4 million views. Only 3800 of those were as a result of accessing the redirect at Donald J. Trump. (Noting that many of the views are due to wikilinks to the article rather than to the redirect, but we would need a much higher count at the page with the initial to consider it a hot search term.) General Ization ^Talk 13:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You may also find it interesting to see how this and other redirects are being used to access the article. General Ization ^Talk 14:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a stupid argument. Type Donald J. Trump into Google and the Wiki page that will come up with be Donald Trump not the redirect therefore of course very few people will get to the page from the redirect. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

He's mostly referred to as Donald Trump or President Trump. As for Donald J. Trump? not so often. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@JJ.Jarrett: As long as users reach this page as expected, it's all good. Most people using Google to look for Trump will type "Trump", not "Donald J. Trump", so that's not an issue anyway. He's universally known as Donald Trump, both in reality and in reliable sources, so that is what our article says. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.