Talk:Donald Trump

Open RfCs and surveys

• #Forbes 400 tapes, again., section #Finding consensus on exact wording
• #Religion "honored to have a Jewish daughter"
• #RfC: Should the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy?

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Forbes 400 tapes, again.

JFG has proposed modifying the version of the Forbes sentence that we agreed on in this RFC; technically, looking over the history, it looks like he tried to implement it with a modified version, which I only corrected last night. For now I've switched back to the exact version that reached consensus in the RFC rather than trying for a compromise - since it seems there's still a dispute, please do not modify it, at all, until we have clear consensus here. The differences between the two versions are here, with his preferred version on the left. My objections: 1. The "share of the family assets" aspect is not particularly prominent in the sources (in fact, most do not mention it at all), so I feel it's a digression that distracts from the primary focus of essentially all coverage, which is that Trump lied about his wealth in order to get into the Forbes 400 list; and 2. the proposed change does not explicitly state that the purpose of the deception was to get onto the Forbes 400 list, which is the primary focus of all the coverage. The latter of these things was also the main focus of the RFC (it's in the title!), so taking it out unambiguously violates the RFC's conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The RfC did not mandate a specific wording, so I don't think I "proposed modifying" anything. In fact, seeing no action since RfC was closed, I read all sources and wrote a sentence[1] that I felt reflected the closer's conclusion pretty well, viz:

Former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg stated in 2018 that Trump had deceived him about his actual net worth and his share of the family assets.

Aquillion then changed it[2] to:

In 2018, Jonathan Greenberg, an ex-Forbes reporter, said that Trump had deceived him about his actual wealth in order to be included on the 1982 listing.

with edit comment "Rewording slightly to more closely match the version of the Greenberg sentence that was settled on in the RFC, with some minor additions to make it clear that this refers to the 1982 list." I reverted this[3] with edit comment: "I disagree. Greenberg actually says that Trump deceived him and his colleagues for several years, not just in 1982. Also, the weaseling about his share of the family business is very significant."

Context is already clear that we are in 1982, as the previous sentence says:

He appeared on the initial Forbes 400 list of richest Americans in 1982 with an estimated $200 million fortune equally shared with his father.

And the Greenberg piece specifically explains that Trump apparently inflated his wealth repeatedly during the 1980s, until Forbes finally dropped him in 1989. Also, the 50/50 share with Trump Sr. looked extremely dubious, and that is definitely worth mentioning. Taking into account Aquillion's remarks, I would suggest this change:

Former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg stated in 2018 that Trump had deceived him about his actual net worth and his share of the family assets in order to appear on the list.

What do you think? — JFG ^talk 21:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose - sorry, JFG - but I think it's trivia with -0- lasting encyclopedic value, except maybe to a Forbes ex-staffer who is suddenly looking for attention. That claim didn't get any mileage when it happened, yet all of a sudden it means something? Time wise, we're in the first 500+ days of his presidency, and as more stuff develops, we'll be looking to TTT (trim the trivia), so we might as well start now. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: We are not re-running the RfC, so you can't "oppose". Please. A sentence must be added, let's focus on discussing the exact wording. — JFG ^talk 21:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Door #4 - apologies, I wasn't here for the close and totally overlooked it above. "Former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg stated....". ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• OpposeThis is rather outrageous. OP wrote text that reflected the conclusion of the uninvolved closer of the poll and JFG -- having !voted against inclusion because +/-"Trump hahaha," then wants to go back to the text that deviates from the closing instruction only shortly after the close. No justification for any deviation from the Aquillion text. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what went on. Please review the edit history and stop the personal attacks. — JFG ^talk 22:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You wrote text that ignored the instructions of the closer. OP fixed it and now you want to deviate again. Clue us in - what did I get wrong? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please explain to everybody how I "ignored the instructions of the closer". Closer wrote: clearly a very strong consensus that something about the Forbes tapes be included: I did the work to include it when nobody seemed to care 3 days after the RfC was closed. Closer wrote: However […] the positioning and phrasing of the sentence may lead readers to think that it's alleged Trumps current position on the Forbes list is the result of fabrication […] thought should be given to phrasing when including them in the article. Consequently I paid attention to detail and wrote a carefully-worded sentence that correctly represents the substance of Greenberg's declarations. And it was not because "Trump hahaha"; in fact my phrasing is harder on Trump than Aquillion's version, by adding that he reportedly lied about the 50/50 (or 90/10, or 5/95, who knows?) share of the family fortune, which is a fucking big deal and was duly noted by several participants in the RfC. So, quit lecturing me in every thread based on what you guess I think, quit misrepresenting what I and others are actually writing, and go put in some constructive work into the article itself. Your constant badgering of this talk page and lack of AGF is extremely frustrating to several editors. Thanks. — JFG ^talk 22:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It is very clear from the close: ...thought should be given to phrasing when including them in the article (perhaps citing the year the events were alleged to have occured?) - This was in the article before the RfC, I believe, but at any rate you did not do this in the text you wrote after the close. This was what @Aquillion: corrected and what necessitated this thread. Nobody here should judge content on whether it's "harder on Trump..." so I don't think that's germane and I won't respond to that. As to your comment in the RfC, it is on the record. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence of the RFC is Since it seems like everyone has presented their arguments and there are requests for an RFC... this discussion led to debates over whether we should include this edit, which covers tapes by reporter Jonathan Greenberg that he says shows Trump lying in order to get on the Forbes 400 list, with a link to a specific edit that was the topic of discussion. I appreciate that (even as someone who opposed during the RFC) you probably felt that you were trying for a reasonable interpretation of what the RFC required and that you felt you'd satisfactorily met that standard (maybe even feeling you'd gone beyond it by being more "harsh" to Trump, as you said above); I don't fault you for that. But now that an objection has been raised we must go back to a strict reading of the RFC's outcome, at least for now. Anyway, procedure-yammering aside, since we're discussing it now and I should probably move on to that so we can actually hammer the rest of that consensus out... as I said above, I feel the "share of family assets" bit is a nonstarter - I don't feel one aspect of the exact mechanism of his deception (arguing over the share of wealth) is worth including in a one-sentence summary, since only some of the secondary sources focus on it. If we were writing a larger block of text, sure, we'd mention it, but I don't think the sources support the idea that it belongs in a one-sentence summary. --Aquillion (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I felt it was important to mention the "share of family's fortune" aspect of Trump's deception, because the preceding sentence in our prose states: He appeared on the initial Forbes 400 list of richest Americans in 1982 with an estimated $200 million fortune equally shared with his father. Consequently I would still advocate for some text that would acknowledge this was likely a misrepresentation by Trump. Open to discussion on the exact wording, of course. Taking into account your other remark that we should also state Trump's goal to be on the list, my suggestion is: Former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg stated in 2018 that Trump had deceived him about his actual net worth and his share of the family assets in order to appear on the list. It's still brief, and it's more precise. Can you get behind that? — JFG ^talk 22:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Still not convinced. Honestly I'd be more likely to remove or replace the preceding sentence (it's sourced to a slideshow, of all things? Listacles are not particularly good sources, since they provide no context or depth.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point about the slideshow; I replaced it with a proper article from Forbes which recaps the evolution of Trump's estimated fortune from 1982 to 2015.[4] Crucially it doesn't say that the $200 million of 1982 were shared "equally" with his father, just shared, so I edited accordingly. — JFG ^talk 14:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Still think exclude - trivia lightly covered piece, lacks WEIGHT and simply not a major action by Trump or significant effect to his life that would make it suitable for BLP menion. For the whole section I'd prefer simplify, shorten, and summarize the too many figures makes it TLDR and an unimportant interview 40 years ago is just a level of excess detail. Describe it in 10 words or less,leave more detail inside the cite that will pop-up if someone wants it and move along. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC has decided to include this, doesn't matter that you'd still like it out. You say "describe it in 10 words or less"; why not but do you have a suggestion? Current proposal on the table is 32 words, I'd struggle to shorten it without trimming its meaning. — JFG ^talk 05:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not following the history too well right now, but I support the version in the fourth green box (whatever proposal that is), with one caveat: since we have said that his statement was in 2018, I feel it necessary to clarify that we are talking about events that happened in the 1980s. We can say 1980s generally instead of 1982 specifically if that's the reason people are objecting to it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• If I can still comment on this, and it looks like I can, I agree with Compassionate727: the fourth option looks best with me, with the 1980s note thrown in. —Javert2113 (Let's chat! | Contributions) 01:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Version 4 I support version 4. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Aquillion's version with one change: In 2018, former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg said that Trump had deceived him about his actual wealth in order to be included on the 1982 listing. We need the year for clarification in the second sentence so that another reader/editor who's not familiar with the backstory or the RfC won't wonder why 2018 is chronologically situated between 1982 and 1989. I would even suggest removing "actual" - "his wealth" suffices. We don't need to repeat the detail about him sharing wealth/assets with his father. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Finding consensus

Thanks for the new comments. Current status:

• Support 4th version, possibly adding "in the 1980s": JFG, Atsme, Compassionate727, Javert2113, Emir of Wikipedia, Winkelvi, Jdcomix, Mandruss
• Support prior text: Aquillion, SPECIFICO, Space4Time3Continuum2x (with slight change), Scjessey
• Support full removal: Markbassett (but that would go against the RfC outcome)

Who else would like to comment? — JFG ^talk 19:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Number 4 is a non-starter, as it violates the RfC requirement that 1982 be mentioned for context. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

1982 is already in the previous sentence for context, it would be bad prose to repeat it. And we have the suggestion to add "in the 1980s" to better reflect the source, as Greenberg alleged that Trump inflated his wealth repeatedly throughout the decade. — JFG ^talk 05:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Basically, since you're the editor who precipitated this situation, it would be best if you step back and don't act as emcee or moderator. This will be resolved in due time by discussion, not vote counting and prompts. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Could you possibly assess consensus here, or add your own thoughts? — JFG ^talk 08:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops - you caught me. I've been ignoring this discussion - also the previous one - so I guess that makes me uninvolved. I'll take a look later today and see if I can make anything out if it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Could somebody please clarify what you mean by “version 4,” “Aquillion’s version”, etc. - since the various versions are not clearly identified in the discussion? --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Aquillion's is: In 2018, Jonathan Greenberg, an ex-Forbes reporter, said that Trump had deceived him about his actual wealth in order to be included on the 1982 listing. Version 4 is: Former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg stated in 2018 that Trump had deceived him about his actual net worth and his share of the family assets in order to appear on the list. — JFG ^talk 18:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I find that the discussion is not ready to close, because three additional comments were made in the last 24 hours. Apparently not all parties have been heard from; maybe the recent talk here attracted renewed attention. I will attempt to close it in a day or two, or whenever it appears that discussion is over. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support version 4. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support prior text, per Aquillion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support 4th version per above. Jdcomix (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support version 4 - because it has the lead and I oppose spending a lot of time deciding between multiple wordings when they are (1) factually equivalent and (2) neither problematic from a language standpoint (grammar, clarity, flow, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised to see either sentence in The New York Times, and that's a high enough bar for me. IOW it's an arbitrary choice. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Kim summit in the article at all

The earlier discussion was about whether to put this in the lede, and there was clearly no consensus to do so. I hadn't seen any objection to mentioning it in the article text so I added a paragraph to the North Korea subsection of the Foreign policy section. SPECIFICO reverted it [5], apparently believing that we should wait a month or two to see if coverage of this is undue WEIGHT. I am truly surprised at that belief - it certainly has far more weight than other things we discuss in that section, such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem or a troop increase in Afghanistan - and I felt it was unfair to our readers to have nothing about the story that has dominated the headlines for a week and gotten heavy coverage for the past two months since it was first proposed. But let's discuss it here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Just so we are clear what we are talking about: the article previously contained, and now contains again, a single sentence:

On June 12. 2018, after several rounds of preliminary staff-level meetings, Trump and Kim met at a hotel in Singapore.

What I added, and SPECIFICO removed, was

They talked one-on-one with only interpreters present, then had a working lunch along with staff and advisors. They signed a joint statement agreeing to new peaceful relations, security guarantees for North Korea, reaffirmation of North Korea's promise to work toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, recovery of soldiers' remains, and follow-up negotiations between high-level officials. At a followup press conference, Trump announced that the U.S. will stop holding joint military exercises with South Korea, calling them "provocative".

Sources

Was that TMI? Let’s discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the text as it's written, but I think we should add one sentence that notes: 1) the summit was seen as de-escalatory by experts (i.e. there had been bellicose rhetoric by both sides since Trump took office), 2) the substance of the "agreement" was weak in terms of past agreements and in the context of the current challenges. This can be supported by RS, but I don't have time to dig them up at the moment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I am roughly OK with what you wrote, except for the sentence "They talked one-on-one with only interpreters present, then had a working lunch along with staff and advisors.", which is trivial. Also, if we are going to add that Trump announced the end to war games, we need to also add that the announcement blindsided South Korea and the US military.[6] - MrX 🖋 23:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this info belongs in the Presidency article. If something comes off it then it may be significant enough for this article as well, but we're not there yet.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, looking forward to more comments. I don't think we should get into analysis and commentary about the meeting. TMI for a biography; leave it for the Summit and Foreign policy articles. But I do think we should give more detail than simply the fact that it happened. Looking at the "weight" of our coverage in that North Korea subsection: we have a paragraph about the increasing tension and threats during 2017. We have a paragraph about the planning for the meeting, including its cancellation and rescheduling. But we can’t say anything about what happened at the meeting? --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Marek, it's easy to justify even a premature version of this summit content in the Presidency article. I also thank MelanieN for pointing out that there's a lot of undue mention of dubious Presidential "achievements" in this bio article. I would continue to trim them to achieve a real bio. Things that are either facts of his life or that RS are very clear will be memorable to his legacy. And to beat my horse again -- how can we omit mention of his America First evisceration of the Post-Ww2 Alliance, widely noted, reported, and analyzed - and an unthinkable development as little as 4 years ago that is one of his few substantive accomplishments. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I say again, nothing substantive has actually happened yet as a result of the meeting. These guys are politicians. Words are their stock in trade, and words is all we have. We must be very careful about even suggesting that anything has actually changed. Just slow down a bit everyone. Please. Oh, and I agree that this is all more suited to the Presidency article, rather than this one. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I like what you did, Melanie, except for the trivia so I agree with what MrX said about that, but not so much about the term "blindsiding" as I saw no real evidence in that regard. The article says the S.K. Defense Ministry issued a "curt statement" but I didn't see anything in the article about it beyond that comment. I think we need to clarify the part about ending the "war games", including the costs, and also the VP's statement which was echoed by Sen Gardner in a tweet: “@VP was very clear: regular readiness training and training exchanges will continue”. That info is included in the same NYTimes article with other material relating to Trump's decision - all were given equal weight. Former Obama officials expressed concerns - no big surprise there - including McKeon's comment: “On the face of it, seems like a pretty big concession”....but that is mostly speculation until we see what Un does on his end. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN's version was just fine. I did not see anything trivial about mentioning that Kim and Trump had a semi-private talk followed by a working luncheon with their high level support staffs.--MONGO 01:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I have not seen any RS discussion of the "cost savings" of discontinuing security preparedness in the South China Sea except to express utter amazement that Trump would go so far beyond any credible posture and that Pence and others would have to walk back POTUS pronouncements while they were still warm, less than 12 hours afterward. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Atsme: "un" is his middle name. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really middle names in Korean... Jong-un is his first name. PackMecEng (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Good-un. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• This "summit" with the dictator of a smallish country which resulted in words that RS mostly describe as "more words" and "feelings" is in while the G-7 summit Trump torpedoed can't be mentioned? No way! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Add Melanie's version and then rewrite the "North Korea" foreign policy section. It reads like Hawaii is still preparing for imminent nuclear attack while Reliable Sources(tm) are now portraying NK as insignificant and unworthy of attention by the US president when less than a year ago they were showing maps of where Experts(tm) thought NK missiles could reach and hawai were placing their kids in storm drains . The departure from "six party talks" as well as the thawing relationship between NK and SK is historic and unprecedented since before WW2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.111.108 (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

...if it's real. The problem is that all we have so far is words from politicians. I work on the basis of not believing them until they prove me wrong. I am awaiting definite actions. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The summit happened. NK and SK are talking and have met a few times with each crossing over the armistice. Those are simple facts. We aren't in the WP:CRYSTAL business. It's not like we are reporting the reunification of Korea, just the reality of what has occurred. The meetings are unprecedented and historic. Certainly as worthy of writing about as Clinton's North Korean deals as well as Obama's. All have tried to denuclearize NK and the attempts are all noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.111.108 (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I cannot get as excited as you seem to be about mere words. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include – I agree to Melanie's proposed text, except the last sentence about halting military drills, because this was only volunteered by Trump in his press conference, and the precise outcome is not yet clear (next drills are scheduled for August, so I suppose we'll find out soon). Reporting on what happened at the summit and what was jointly declared, even if "mere words", is highly encyclopedic and DUE. — JFG ^talk 12:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Query On what basis would we exclude the documented proclamation by the Commander in Chief of the US Military that he is suspending military maneuvers? SPECIFICO talk 12:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Because that's just something he mentioned to the press, and has not been confirmed by the White House or the DoD. Ditto with Trump's statement that Kim would scuttle a missile engine test site: no confirmation from North Korea, so too early to mention. — JFG ^talk 12:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Surely you are not suggesting that the supreme commander's statement as to his own military is equivalent to the same individual's second-hand statement about what he expects his adversary to do? What do you mean by "The White House" confirming the words of a US President? That is not easy to understand. SPECIFICO talk 12:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen a White House statement or a DoD statement in writing? I haven't. Trump's blather is notoriously unreliable. — JFG ^talk 12:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Any addition to the article that includes the "essence" of the nebulous, meaningless statement signed by Trump and Kim, but excludes the astounding plan to suspend "provocative" war games that shocked the South Koreans and other allies in the region without securing any concessions will get no support from me. It was literally THE most talked/written about aspect of the summit after the actual meeting itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG:}Help us understand what you're saying. Are you saying that "The White House" overrules the President of the US? Who is "The White House?" Which of the two is in command of the US Military? Could you clarify your claims? What would be the basis for subordinating the Commander in Chief's declaration? Your personal opinion ("Trump's blather...") is not helpful. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Looking at this comment from you, On what basis would we excluded the documented proclamation by the Commander in Chief of the US Military that he is suspending military maneuvers?, I am hopelessly confused. You are the one who has been insisting we shouldn't say ANYTHING about what happened at the meeting, and certainly not anything about the final communique, because we need to wait for it to get digested by independent sources. At least I think that's what you have been saying; it's certainly why you reverted the addition of details about the meeting. And yet now you are saying that we SHOULD include a comment that Trump made at a next-day press conference? Could you please clarify your position? --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a line of text was dropped I will investigate. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. JFG is saying, when Trump says this apparently rash and reckless thing we disregard it because the President of USA and Commander in Chief does not speak for "The White House". This makes no sense and it reads as if he's sweeping Trump's statement under the rug -- a statement that horrified RS reporters and expert analysts. So I'm asking JFG to articulate the theory under which he thinks it's OK to ignore POTUS statement when RS say it reveals ignorance or incompetence but otherwise to accept POTUS words as being authoritative on a wide range of other subjects. I don't believe JFG has responded. We can't really take his suggestion seriously without some convincing rationale. So my question is about why one POTUS statement and not another? SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, could you please clarify your position? Do you think we should include details about the meeting and the communique they issued afterward? Do you think we should include Trump's statement about stopping joint military exercises with South Korea? --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. Regardless of any of our conclusions, we can't elevate the Joint Statement, but ignore Trump's off the cuff cancellation of military preparedness which is what JFG appears to propose. My view is we should leave the whole joint statement off. It's just bad theater and it's a flash-in-the-pan, already off the news and analysis cause today they got another bite at Anthony Weiner and Sara H. Sanders/Mexican juveniles is heating up. The nukes thing is over for 3-6 months, IMO, and who has said it amounts to a hill of beans? The shocking impromptu POTUS decision to change US military posture in Asia may be noteworthy of itself, and merits further discussion. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Include all of it. The same arguments were made to exclude mentioning the on again/off again/on again summit because it fit some preconceived notion/confirmation bias about "The Truth." . Write what both leaders said rather than trying to insert personal assessments of truthiness. Their statements are notable and verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.203.2 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not about "truth". Wikipedia is not just a collection of verified facts. Facts must also be significant ("noteworthy") and it's not clear that the 4 points in this document are significant in any respect. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include some - should follow WP:WEIGHT and have material on events in proportion to the amount of coverage -- roughly anyway, though that may mean other changes to this section. Googling, I see "fire and fury" has 56,000 hits and gets a line; so "Korean summit" having 1,840,000 hits looks like it should have 400 lines. That's really not feasible but perhaps makes the point that it's bigger than other things that are here. Seems also showing that other bits got an UNDUE amount of space and should look into having them reduced or removed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Trump hair" has 800,000,000 + hits. Let's not favor easy metrics over judgment. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump's cancellation of the joint military exercises should now be placed in the article, per discussion above. SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Now we can do it, because DoD and South Korea have confirmed they are suspending several drills that were planned over the next few months. Generally, there is new information about the followup to the Singapore summit, so that we can restart a discussion on what to add. Will suggest a draft in a new section. — JFG ^talk 08:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Roy Cohn influence watered down

This edit [7] removes well-written English that conveys the statements of the cited source and its thrust and replaces the wording with a vague and vacuous version that vitiates this striking statement. This edit should be undone. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think that edit is an improvement. More clearly written, and less sensational. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The whole point of what Trump learned from Roy Cohn is to be "sensational" and the "maximum force response" is the direct forebear of the "maximum pressure meme" with respect to North Korea. See page 64 of the cited source. Article text should not be revised without regard for and inspection of the cited source. "Forceful" is not what Roy Cohn was about and not how he trained Trump to attack. The stable language reflected the cited source. The revision language is not true to the source or the subject. SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course the new language is true to the source; just read it. Are you going to just undo all my edits? Your fellow editors might as well retire and hand you the keys of the encyclopedia? Systematic opposition is unconstructive and unduly personal; please note that I have thanked you for some edits, while disagreeing with others. Do exercise some balance: we all want to bring this article up to Wikipedian standards of quality. — JFG ^talk 03:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If you will please take the time to read this and any of the abundant discussions of Trump's tutelage and inseparable companionship with Roy Cohn you will see that Cohn's style and his lessons to Trump were to "counterpunch" -- a term Trump still uses to proudly describe his style -- with overwhelming brutal and vicious attacks against any body or any thing that threatens his agenda. The stable language conveyed a bit of that in a short form. Yours removes the essesntial message of RS accounts. We can either reinstate that text or editors may wish to gather additional RS for an expanded account of this very strange but enduring surrogate father/son relationship that ended tragically for Trump with Cohn's death in the 1980's. Cohn is a key figure in Trump's life story. Perhaps the' key figure. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So “counterattacking with overwhelming force” is what you are missing in the rewritten sentence? That not a quote from Trump or Cohn; it is a phrase from the authors of the book, although it is not credited as a quote. The new version, “responded to attacks with forceful counterattacks,” faithfully reflects the language of the source, paraphrasing it per Wikipedia’s usual habit to avoid copyvio. IMO there can be no dispute that the new version is much better written, in terms of construction and clarity, without removing anything at all. --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm adding a specific expert summary of the Cohn style Trump learned from his mentor, attributing it to the source, whose judgment and reporting skills far surpass those of any WP editor here. There's similar discussion from a very different sort of journalist here [8] SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with what you added. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Super. That is even more clear than the text that was removed. That's why it pays to work through these things even if you can't stand my insistent charm. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed your insertion of a POV opinion by a columnist. — JFG ^talk 08:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You can put it back (without senselessly denigrating this report by a highly respected journalist and political observer) or we can do an RfC. You have 2 strikes trying to remove this key influence on Trump's life with mushy language and now this deletion. Since consensus will favor putting it back I suggest you not necessitate the RfC. Your choice. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You add something, I remove it, onus is on you to get consensus. Vague threats of "two strikes" and crystal-balling the outcome of a possible RfC are not helpful. — JFG ^talk 07:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't find a convincing policy basis to omit this. Per WP:BIASED, we can't omit merely because it's POV opinion, and that's the only basis for objection JFG stated in his editsum and here. "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." New York magazine certainly passes the editorial control test. I don't know how one fact-checks opinion, but I guess New York does as well as anybody on fact-checking in general. BIASED gives examples using Betty Friedan and Harry Magdoff, and I see little significant difference between them and Frank Rich; any noteworthy comments by either of them would likely be loaded with POV, and many of them critical of public figures. This passes WP:WEIGHT because Rich's words hardly represent a fringe viewpoint; surely I don't need to produce sources to prove that to fair-minded editors.
I think I would support the content with the change of "summed up by Frank Rich as" to "described by liberal columnist Frank Rich as". I think most readers of political articles are astute enough to consider the source of the commentary, and our job ends at making it clear who the source is. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Apprentice - reinsertion of text

This edit [9] reinserts undue and unsourced detail and presents it as fact rather than part of the TV show plot premise. This edit should be undone. SPECIFICO talk 23:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Valuable description of the show and emphasizes Trump's role; this is his biography after all. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please find a citation that verifies this and please verify that the "prize" was indeed a senior management role in a business owned by Trump. Yes this is his biography. That's why undue detail about the show would more appropriately go in the article about the show. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please check out our article List of The Apprentice (U.S.) candidates. In the lede section you will find a blue-link for each of the winners, with verified/sourced details about their work for Trump. Some stayed on after their one year, some left. I think they may have stopped hiring the person when they switched to celebrity contestants, but the description is definitely accurate for the early years. This is not an "undue detail", it was the whole premise of the show. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. And according to this article, it was the show that transformed him from New York tycoon to larger-than-life celebrity and credible presidential candidate. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

But the article for the show can't tell us what to put in his bio. This detail of the show didn't catapult Trump to celebrity. This is exactly why editors shouldn't rely on our own ideas as to what's DUE WEIGHT. And with this article already quite long and lots of more significant detail omitted -- like America First vs. the Post-WW2 World Order -- who did what to whom on a TV show doesn't seem to change the meaning or significance of Trump's life much. I think this is really the beauty of being able to wikilink to the place where readers can get infinite layers of detail if they keep clicking. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please do relax. I just restored a brief description of the show's premise. Not every reader has access to U.S. television. We're writing an encyclopedia here, not a "Trump is a fraud" book. — JFG ^talk 03:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s hard to follow such an active history, but here’s what I think happened: At 23:51 on June 14 SPECIFICO removed three things from the show’s section: the description of the show’s premise, how much Trump earned per episode, and the show’s Emmy nominations. At 18:05 on June 15 JFG restored one thing: the description of the show’s premise. Apparently nobody minds your removal of the other two things, but the description of the show has some defenders here. The restored sentence was longstanding content. We will continue to discuss it here for a few days, but the default is to keep it, and it will require consensus to keep it out. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It's clear to me that some details of American TV fiction are off topic and excessive detail to this bio when we have a separate article to convey them to readers who care. But as in so many of these little snippets, if we are to include it we need to do so in a way that gives full context and detail, not in a way that promotes the narrative put forth by involved characters. Like many other Trump ventures after the failure of his real estate development business, this show was crafted to present a certain narrative to the public. There is much RS discussion of that tactic and the extent to which its credible, the effect it had on his public image, and the returns it paid to his political career. If we're going to start adding description of TV details, they need to be NPOV, not the version promulgated by the principal, and they need to be presented with context and consequence. MelanieN, if you rush the reinsertion then as you say we'll need to launch an RfC and I think that would be unduly burdensome so I hope you'll give this some time to develop broad discussion and see what we come up with. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Certainly there is no rush. Only three people have commented so far; that's not enough for consensus. Anyhow, no "reinsertion" will be necessary; right now the information is in the article, as it should be while we discuss whether to remove it. Like I said, the default for long-standing material is keep. But let's see if consensus develops to remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. re "American TV fiction": Are you still clinging to your debunked opinion that the winners didn't actually get a job with the Trump organization? They did, you know. That is not "the narrative put forth by involved characters" or "the version promoted by the principal," it is a simple one-sentence description of what the show was about. No need for elaborate analysis, for "context and consequence"; that can be found at the linked article about the show. BTW you didn't seem to have any problem with the very similar descriptions of the premise of Celebrity Apprentice; you left them in. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, it said "senior management roles". Then you cite that they're blue-linked but a quick check reveals that the ones with valid articles had other basis for notability and that most of the winners have no such articles and that those with articles mostly have articles full of tags like unsourced, primary, OR etc.

I'll look at the Celebrity Apprentice bit, thanks.

I'm concerned that you're not specifying what you mean "the default is to keep" the old text. Are you saying that without overwhelming consensus to remove it, that text has somehow hardened and is part of the landscape like Mt. Rushmore? Articles generally get better over time as more content and context is available. That is not often the case with older, stable subjects such as 14th Century French literature, but it is certainly true of all these articles that relate to current or recent events. If you're claiming that the text can be reinserted just because it wasn't overwhelmingly rejected here -- rather than because nobody can actually justify it -- that does not seem right, particularly in these AP articles. Lots of this stuff was put in the article without much attention quite some time ago, and we should be continuously evaluating WEIGHT, context, alternative article locations on WP, and other factors. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you? SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"This article is under active arbitration remedies. Editors must obtain consensus on the talk page before reinstating any edits that have been challenged." Your edit was to remove material; part of that edit has been challenged, by restoring it; so the material cannot be removed again without consensus. The rest of your edit was not challenged, so it remains in effect. Come on, you know this. --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, considering that I'm the one who brought it to the talk page I give you credit for recognizing that I know this. But if you want to interpret that to mean that any old stale imperfect article text reinstated apparently without even a simple fact/verification check or search for better references, then we'll just need to go through endless RfC's to break the logjam. The DS rule was certainly not intended to empower obstinate POV editing without collaboration or engagement. Not that we're at that point yet by any means. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the sentence about Celebrity apprentice. That merely states they competed for prizes. That's innocuous enough and verifiable. the "senior management role" bit is obvious nonsense. Do you think Trump Organization risked its billions on telegenic wannabe's who show up for dramatically lit errands like starting a maid service or running a food truck? Or have sources said that's why so many of Trump's recent ventures got into legal trouble and/or failed? SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. again: We could talk about a slight rewording of the phrase. Right now it says “contestants competed for a high-level management job in one of Trump's businesses”. “High level management” could be a little puffish. Our article about the show says the show’s prize was “a one-year $250,000 starting contract to run one of Donald Trump's companies”. That's more precise than the vague "job". We could say that instead of “high level management job” if you prefer. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be PSS, and if a 3rd time, you simply add an i after the P. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually it would be PPS - "post postcript". I can pick nits just as well as you. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

There you go again - being all factually accurate - but as you can see, adding an "i" after the "P" creates confusion because no one knows which P is being referenced...(not to mention the fact that it screws-up my joke)...and that is the crux of WP editing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been wondering what the actual prize was – can't seem to find the source. If they competed for a job as an apprentice to Trump, how does that qualify as high-level management or even management? An unusually well-paid apprentice, but still an apprentice. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don’t know why this info - a one-year job with Trump for $250,000 - is being challenged; it’s common knowledge. (Some of them also got a car, but never mind.) Sources for the prize: CBS News his first female "Apprentice," handing her a job with his organization and a $250,000 salary, The New Yorker the winners—who do, in fact, go on to work for Trump, with a salary of $250,000, Fortune seven contestants have successfully won a spot as Trump’s apprentice for a year, which comes with a $250,000 payday, Today the winner of “The Apprentice” will end up with a year’s contract working for The Donald in one of his many companies, and a salary of $250,000 Whatever their actual work was, it's titled as management and pays like management. It’s ridiculous to even be arguing about this. Can we move on to something that actually needs to be researched? --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's get to work. There's plenty of RS material that gives a more NPOV and encyclopedic snapshot of the TV show. Starting with this [10] which tells me to remove the statement that the show was filmed in the Trump Tower. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I really can’t understand why you are going to the wall about this, but OK. The first six years were the ones that featured “aspiring, but otherwise unknown, businesspersons” competing for the prize of a job with Trump; the others were called “Celebrity Apprentice” and followed a different format. You have made a bunch of statements, above, about the shows produced under the original premise. Everything you said is incorrect.

• a quick check reveals that the ones with valid articles had other basis for notability Not true. They were deliberately chosen to be unknowns. Many of them then leveraged their win to go on to do other notable things.

• most of the winners have no such articles Not true. The first six (the ones under the original premise of competing for a job) all have articles. The articles in each case detail the “job” they got as their prize. #1 took charge of the construction of Trump Tower Chicago. #2 was “nominally managing the construction of Trump Place located in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, New York but in reality promoting it”. #3 supervised the renovation of Trump’s $25 million fixer-upper mansion in Florida. #4 supervised the renovation of the Taj Mahal and two other casinos. #5 supervised the Trump SoHo project. #6 oversaw the Trump at Cap Cana project and also became VP of sales and marketing for the Trump hotel in Las Vegas.

• those with articles mostly have articles full of tags like unsourced, primary, OR etc. Not true. Articles which do not contain any such tags: #1, #3, #4, #5, #6. Articles which do: #2 is tagged for additional citations.

• Oh, and apparently you didn’t actually look at the info about Celebrity Apprentice. It does not say they "completed for prizes”. It says they compete to win money for their charities.

Look, I don’t know why you are fighting this so hard, but let’s stay fact-based. You have yet to come up with an actual reason for removing this simple, well-sourced information. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Those articles of the former unknowns are nearly all AfD candidates, and tagged for "improvement", except maybe for "Omorosa". "Supervised the fixup of a $25 million mansion. That's a senior executive? That sounds like an administrative assistant who took messages from the licensed General Contractor. Wikipedia editors can't be suspending normal human intelligence to rebroadcast all the foolishness and self-promotion that is handed out by politicians, celebrities, or anyone else. You think the "VP marketing" for a Vegas strip hotel is a WP:NOTABLE individual? What about the tens of thousands of VP-Marketing folks for every other medium sized business in the USA or the world? Who's the VP-Marketing of Cracker Barrel? I can't seem to find that person's Wikipedia article. NPOV takes some critical evaluation of sources, their statements, their biases, their credibility, etc. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sake. One more comment and then I'm moving on to something constructive. It is still false (are you trying to rival Trump)?) that "nearly all" of the articles are tagged for "improvement". As I said above, only one of the six articles about the actual winner of a job has an article tag, for more sources. Omorosa was not one of the six winners BTW. The rest are notable, not because of their job title or previous or subsequent activities, but because they were the winners of a major hit TV show. Exactly like the winners of Survivor all have articles.[11] Anyhow, we are far afield from the actual issue under discussion here: should we include a brief description of the show's premise? I say yes. JFG says yes. You say no, for reasons you have never made clear. Do you disbelieve that they got the promised prize? (If that had been the case the winner would certainly have sued.) What other reason can you possibly have for not including the a simple description of the show? Please state your reason simply, in a brief separate paragraph below, and then let's you and I stop this wall of text and move on to let others comment. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

For whatever reason, MelanieN you seem to be straining the limit of Civility. I didn't say "nearly all the articles are tagged for improvement". I was referring to the articles of folks who were not otherwise notable and noting that most of the winners listed have no article at all. So any claim that the winners were launched into corporate careers is not borne out by the facts. Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos did not set up a catering tent on an Apprentice episode and get offered jobs as senior executives at Trump Steaks. The show was fiction start to finish. Let's all enjoy it as such. It's not like Leonard Nimoy can really read your mind or Dr. Bones can heal you with a turkey thermometer contraption either. It's just TV that somehow jumped the shark for the credulous 30%+ of the American population. I'm courteously replying to you -- I have done nothing to prolong this evident point or to shut others out of commenting. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you are still insisting that “most of the winners listed have no article at all” when I have shown, repeatedly, that all six of them do. We seem to be talking at cross purposes. But let’s move on. I gather that what you are objecting to is the phrase “in which contestants competed for a high-level management job in one of Trump's businesses”. Let’s just reword that. Most of the sources, as I quoted above, say the prize was “a one-year contract for a $250,000 job working for Trump”. Let’s leave out the amount (even though they all mention it) and say “in which the winner would be awarded a one-year contract for a job with the Trump Organization”. That is undeniably true; that’s what they competed for and that’s what the winner got. Would that satisfy you? --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO - try to look at it from a different perspective...few people in the world care (or even know) about that TV show. The readers who do know about it will go to the article to learn more about it. I think what we need here is a librarian who knows how to properly organize material/references/information. In the Trump BLP we summarize what he's done - and point to the main article about that topic - we don't try to stuff a 225lb body into a size 4 pair of pants....or a size 42DD into a size 8 blouse....however that equates into the various metrics (weights & measures). ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Another discussion where I fail to grasp why we are even having it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not convinced that describing the management role as "high-level" is necessary or accurate; everything else is correct. As an aside, it's technically not true that all winners of Survivor have articles; some are excluded due to WP:BLP1E concerns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO and SpaceTime also have a problem with “high level management job.” I’m going to change it as I proposed above. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"High-level" can be debated, but surely it was a "management job". The new version just says "a job", which could be anything. I will add "management" again. — JFG ^talk 08:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Here's a brain-twister: When JFG reinserted the word "management" against consensus here, was that a DS violation that should be undone or was that something else and if something else how do we restore consensus w/o "management"? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

We didn’t really discuss that; I just went with “job”. Let’s see what the discussers here say: “management job” or “job”? I am neutral, leaning slightly toward just “job”. Pinging @Power~enwiki, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and JFG: comments? --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Well when you removed the characterization "management" you noted "per talk. Here's the sequence: This edit [12] reinserted “senior-level management”. There were objections. Per new consensus on talk you removed the characterization of the job (the crux of the dispute) and edited to the new consensus here [13]. Then the same editor JFG came back to restore his preferred “management” characterization, against the new consensus – with the edit summary claiming “copy edit” So this stealth consensus violation should be undone, correct? Thanks. "Copy edits" that change meanings and violate consensus or RfC closes are very corrosive. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm also leaning towards just job (although I would have added the $250,000 salary/win); I don't know enough about the structure of the Trump Organization which consists of dozens or hundreds of companies. I just looked up this 2004 report on the first season finale: The great moments for Rancic are just starting. His one-year, $250,000 salary is just the beginning. Trump offered him a choice of two jobs within his organization: overseeing a 90-story building project in Chicago or renovating and developing a new Trump golf club in Los Angeles. The Chicago native decided to return to his hometown to work for his famous new boss. Would either one of those jobs qualify as management "within the Trump Organization"? Maybe; definitely not high-level. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"Management" obviously yes, "high-level" disputable; depends how prominent the assigned development projects were with respect to the whole Trump Org. To play it safe and avoid puffery, I removed "high-level". — JFG ^talk 07:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Religion

Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that."

User:JFG restored the above to the section about Trump's religion, claiming it is "very relevant, especially given baseless accusations of anti-semitism against Trump." So, firstly, how is this quote relevant? And secondly, where is the accusation of anti-semitism? zzz (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

1. You removed this long-standing sentence saying it was "irrelevant", the onus is on you to demonstrate its irrelevancy. 2. Accusations of Trump being a bigoted racist anti-semite borderline Nazi are all over the press; we even have a long section about such allegations in this very article. Not that we need to give them even more emphasis. The fact that Trump welcomed and embraced his daughter's conversion to Judaism is therefore ominously relevant. — JFG ^talk 04:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's get real. Trump is populist. If he has an audience he thinks would like to hear something that seems anti-Semitic, that's what he'll say. Of course he will also say that what his daughter does is fine. Consistency is not his forte. HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

1: Ok, It is irrelevant because it tells us nothing about Trump's religion or religious views (or anything else). I thought that was obvious, but now I have spelt it out for you. 2: The word "anti-semitism" is not even mentioned anywhere in the article. zzz (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling it out, that helps understand your perspective. I would argue that this fact does tell us something about Trump's religious views, namely that he is not strictly confined to his own religion, and shows tolerance (call it populism if you will). About point 2, that's a good thing. — JFG ^talk 05:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have hoped you'd have checked DUE WEIGHT to see whether this offhand remark to a Brooklyn Jewish weekly has been widely cited, acknowledged, discussed, or in any other way validated as significant WP article content. Rather disappointing to see it knee-jerked back in without any attention to all the reasons it didn't belong in the article in the first place. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Tolerance and populism are very different things. The former is a real, positive sentiment. The latter is purely politics, and can be a complete lie. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

He's "not strictly confined to his own religion" because he didn't disown his daughter? That seems like original research. And this being proof that he is tolerant, or not anti-semitic, also seems like original research (as well as irrelevant, since anti-semitism is not even mentioned in this article). zzz (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The relevant point is not that he "didn't disown his daughter", it's that when commenting on his daughter's conversion, he expressed a view on religion. That makes it relevant in this section of his bio. — JFG ^talk 05:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"I am very honoured": that is not a view on religion. zzz (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Weak exclude. There are similar quotes of him saying "I have a Jewish daughter", of him mentioning he has Jewish grandchildren, and of Ivanka saying he supported her conversion. I'd want to avoid debates arguing whether 'relevant' which seem OR, so will say it's google count indicates too small to include so UNDUE and should not→ be included. But ... being his daughter I could see it might be taken as acceptable too. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Exclude - It's just a vapid comment along the lines of "some of my best friends are black". It's not encyclopedic.- MrX 🖋 11:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Exclude - This is another example of a meaningless (at best) snippet of self-serving primary narrative that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia without wide coverage, secondary discussion and evaluation, and plenty of context. As experienced editors, surely we know WP is not the place to answer some unstated "anti-Semitic" charge with this standard response of the classic anti-Semite. Aside from anything else, it only makes Trump look bad. And "honored to have a (fill in the blank... Jewish daughter, Maserati, Friend in North Korea, new hairpiece...) is just vacuous drivel that degrades the biography of an important public figure. Honored? What? Like she might not get into the sorority because what? It tells us nothing about Trump with respect to religion. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Exclude - Whether it’s long-standing or not is irrelevant in this case. The section is about his religion, not his views of other people’s religions; it hasn’t been called "religious views" since 05:11, 20 Mar 17. @JFG: Your argument for keeping it is a tad POVish; you’re saying it’s needed to refute the "allegations in this very article" "of Trump being a bigoted racist anti-semite borderline Nazi" because it shows tolerance. If anywhere, it belongs in Public profile -> Racial views; he has said and tweeted numerous times that he’s "the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life," and, also, "the least racist person" (New York mag). That’s the "I cant’ be racist/homophobic/anti-semitic because some of my best friends are black, gay, Jewish" argument. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include somewhere. I thought it was good in the Religion section (he has said very little about his religious beliefs, but this suggests that tolerance is one of them) but it could be moved to the Racial views section. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include - ironic that it appears to be ok to include the views of others but not ok to include Trump’s own views about race and religion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude, but don't really care all that much - Honestly, it doesn't seem to add anything of value. It isn't even an adequate example of Trump expressing his views on religion. Nor is it doing any real harm being in the article. My preference would be to exclude it on the grounds that it is pointless having it, but I'm not going to complain if it's left in. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - Meh. It only suggests he supports his daughter. I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. O3000 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include This should be included somewhere in the article, but I can understand why some might prefer it in "Racial views" rather than religion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Emir, could you explain what you think Trump means by being "very honored" by his daughter's religious beliefs? I mean, she didn't convert to Trumpism. I seriously don't know what the sentence means. Maybe there's more context that would clarify? SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

^^Bad taste.^^ C'mon, you know what it means. Attempts to pigeonhole people typically backfires - leave it be. We cite what the sources say, the material is relevant, and there's no such think as Trumpism anymore than there is Obamaism; primarily beliefs of the young and impressionable who are still actively fighting "causes". Like the moon, the latter wanes over time. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, nobody has the slightest idea what that means, and if you or anyone else has a clue they would already have explained it to us so we might reconsider removing it. Is it like "I am honored that my wife is wearing Obsessed. I am honored my dog chases rabbits? I am honored my son likes FroYo? I'm confident that if you had any convincing answer you would have advanced your argument by explaining it to us. And it can't be that Trump thinks everything honors him, because that would mean we'd need to add all kinds of stuff to the article. I am honored Trudeau eats sloppy poutine. I am honored that Kim shaves half his head... SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

We're all ears, Atsme. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Put the ears away - your eyes are what's needed since reading is involved, beginning with the arguments for include which are far more convincing than those to exclude. We write about the notable/relevant material (quotes, statements of fact) that have been published by RS, and the subject of this discussion falls right in line with that guideline. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include in the religion section. There is no need to quibble over the significance of the word "honored". It is a positive response. It is a response in the affirmative. That is the point. It displays the quality of tolerance. Many charges surround Trump. Anything from antisemitism to Islamophobia to racism. But here we see an instance of Trump displaying tolerance. I think it should be included. He is Christian and his daughter converted to Judaism therefore the placement in the religion section seems correct to me. Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• That's entirely OR, and therefore irrelevant to what's being discussed here. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO—your "Exclude" reasoning is quite convoluted. You say "As experienced editors, surely we know WP is not the place to answer some unstated "anti-Semitic" charge with this standard response of the classic anti-Semite. Aside from anything else, it only makes Trump look bad." His comment is a positive comment. It doesn't make Trump look bad. You are reading into it in an unreasonable way. It is a relatively straightforward comment. "Honor" means "to regard with great respect" according to dictionary.com. It is your examples that are ridiculous, not Trump's use of the word. Honored that he has a "new hairpiece"? "I am honored my dog chases rabbits"? Just because you offer ridiculous uses for the word "honored" doesn't mean Trump is saying anything other than what he is saying. The section of the article under discussion is the "religion" section. Although he is Christian his daughter married a Jew and converted to Judaism and the non-Jewish father (Trump) is saying that he is "honored" that his daughter converted to another religion. You can call it original research but that is almost a classic example of an act or a statement displaying the trait of "tolerance". Furthermore I'm not arguing that we say for instance in the article that this shows his "tolerant" nature—so how is it "original research"? If this being said on a Talk page is "original research" then your saying that "it only makes Trump look bad" would be "original research" too, wouldn't it? Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

On WP we follow WP:WEIGHT. This meaningless curtsy to the Jewish readers of a fringy Brooklyn Jewish weekly newspaper, so obscure that it gets only 300 google search returns, (almost all non-RS), is of no significance at all and should never have been put in the article. Content in an article such as this has tens or hundreds of thousands of citation listings in a google search. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include, absolutely. Seems silly to even have to have a !vote for it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include. It seems to be a major point of interest as to what Trump's various bigotries and prejudices are. Therefore, it's notable enough to include for that reason. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude regardless of the importance of the controversies around Trump, this quote or Trump's response to Ivanka's conversion has not been covered much (in relation to the controversies or not), so it doesn't have enough weight to be here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude The words that come from Trump are so inconsistent they demonstrate nothing about his true beliefs. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include: It's a direct quote by Donald Trump about religion in a section about religion. It's sourced. So it seems well worthy of inclusion to me. Whether one can infer from his quote that it portrays him in a good or a bad light is irrelevant. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• @NoMoreHeroes: There are thousands of direct Trump quotes that can be found in reliable sources. In fact, many of his individual quotes are found in multiple sources. Are you suggesting that include all of his direct quotes in this article, or can you offer a reason for including this one found in only one source, while excluding many others?- MrX 🖋 18:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• @MrX: You misinterpreted my comment. I support including quotes from Donald Trump, reported by at least one reliable source, that pertain to his religious views, in the Religion section of his biography. I think the quote in question satisfies this criteria. If you find other quotes that follow this pattern and include them, I won't object. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying your position. I didn't intentionally misrepresent you, although I may have misinterpreted your comment. I'm still not sure how Trump feeling honored about his (converted) Jewish daughter is a statement of his religious views.- MrX 🖋 20:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude in marginal situations, it's almost never worth including a Trump quote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude the killer argument here seems to me to be how little the comment - or subject - has been picked up by sources. The fact that everyone is furiously engaging in speculation here about what the comment means or shows, or why he said it is indicative to me of the vagueness and vapidity of his original comment. As for 'balancing' criticisms of his views on race or religion - that argument might be valid if we had content about him being criticised for antisemitism, we don't AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You say "everyone is furiously engaging in speculation here about what the comment means or shows". I am not assigning meaning or significance to the comment so much as I am countering claims about the meaning of the comment. There is a distinction between a Talk page and article space. We do not assign meaning to anything or speculate about anything in article space—unless such an assertion is supported by a reliable source. But on a Talk page people can present their reasoning in support of inclusion or omission. Have I speculated about what the comment means? Yes, in response to arguments that dismissed the comment on various grounds. This constitutes normal use of a Talk page. I think the important question is do we speculate about what a comment or other material means in article space? And the answer to that is that no, we do not. Your observation that "everyone is furiously engaging in speculation here about what the comment means or shows"—is simply an observation about the way Talk pages are used. You express that you find the comment "vague" and "vapid". Maybe I'm unusual but I don't find the observation that a non-Jewish man is "honored" to have a Jewish daughter and Jewish grandchildren to be vague and vapid. I think that that comment is of appropriate specificity, therefore not vague. And I think it is both admirable and heartening and not vapid. But different vehicles' mileage may vary. You also express concern over the degree to which sources other than the ones we've cited have "picked up" the comment, but I don't think it is necessarily an enormous concern of ours whether or not whatever sources you have in mind have covered this comment or not. Is it reliably sourced? That is our primary concern. And the answer to that is yes, this material is adequately supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say there was anything wrong about speculating on talk - and the range of reactions here is indicative of how variously the comment can be taken. In case 'vapid' didn't give it away, I lean more towards the "some of my best friends are black" level of significance. The most you could construct out of it is that he isn't a traditional WASP who is insensitive to ALL minorities, but I don't think anyone has said he is. His comments can just as easily be taken as indicating how fundamentally irreligious Trump is as how tolerant he is - religion as a lifestyle choice, with no sense of religion's importance to believers, or indication of what his own belief system is. MelanieM linked to a very critical opinion piece in Haaretz about the choice of preacher for the new Jerusalem embassy - a hell and brimstone preacher - who thinks just about everyone is going to hell (inc Jews) - if they don't follow 'the true path'. The only way I can see of squaring these contradictions is by relying on the weight of analysis given to the topic in RS - and there is minimal coverage of this. Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You say "MelanieM linked to a very critical opinion piece in Haaretz about the choice of preacher for the new Jerusalem embassy - a hell and brimstone preacher - who thinks just about everyone is going to hell (inc Jews) - if they don't follow 'the true path'. The only way I can see of squaring these contradictions is by relying on the weight of analysis given to the topic in RS - and there is minimal coverage of this. You are referring to this source, posted by MelanieN in this post about Robert Jeffress speaking at the Embassy of the United States, Jerusalem. It is your contention that there is a "contradiction" which should prevent us from including the material under discussion. My counterargument would be that we don't necessarily omit what some may perceive as personal inconsistencies from biographies. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include somewhere in the article per NPOV. It is straight from the horses mouth about a member of his family converting to another faith. It is completely relevant.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude; this isn't the article about Ivanka, and the rationale here seems to be pure WP:SYNTH. No sources seem to support the notion that this factoid says anything particularly important about Trump personally. --Aquillion (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"this isn't the article about Ivanka" No, it's the article about the father. "the rationale here seems to be pure WP:SYNTH" This is a Talk page. The "rationale here" is not being placed in the article, is it? Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing and due weight?

Get real folks. A google search on "I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that" returns about 300 hits. 300 - that's it. This statement was in an interview Trump gave The Jewish Voice, a rather activist conservative Jewish weekly publication. This bit is a cherrypicked, meaningless and undue quote from Trump when he was trying to court votes in advance of the Republican primaries. It means nothing, it signifies nothing, it proves nothing, it is not fit for an encyclopedia article. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to take anyone's sentiment for inclusion seriously when these opinions appear to reflect nothing but their OR about the subject and nothing related to the source, due weight, or the context. This cherrypicked snippet is no different than Hilary confiding in the Pulaski Queen in Milwaukee that she craves kielbasa at midnight or thousands of similar little nothings. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You say "Get real folks." Thank you for your folksy observations. You say " This statement was in an interview Trump gave The Jewish Voice, a rather activist conservative Jewish weekly publication. This bit is a cherrypicked, meaningless and undue quote from Trump when he was trying to court votes in advance of the Republican primaries. It means nothing, it signifies nothing, it proves nothing, it is not fit for an encyclopedia article." In my opinion it is valid and relevant. You confuse original research with "argument". A Talk page is for presenting one's case for a side of an argument on a divisive question. The Jewish Voice obviously reports on Jewish concerns in addition to general news. Is this article read by Jews? If "yes", then why wouldn't Trump's comments on Judaism not be of relevance? I am not arguing this is only of interest to Jews. Readers of any background or identity be it religious or otherwise can be informed by such a comment about a father's view of his daughter's religious conversion. There is no need for cynicism here. On the one hand he is a politician but on the other hand he is a family-man with children. In my opinion, a well-rounded biography includes reliably-sourced commentary by the subject of the biography about life-cycle events including the marriage of children and possibly including interfaith marriage and the possible choice of a religion different from the father's. Is this article read by any people interested in interfaith marriage? If "yes" then how can you characterize this material as "cherrypicked, meaningless and undue"? Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

One has every right to be cynical about what a politician says, especially one such as Trump, well known for his hypocrisy and the contradictions in what he says. We should NEVER draw any conclusions about what any person believes based on what they say alone. This is more true for politicians like Trump than in most cases. It may be relevant to precisely quote what he said, but we must not write as if it is certain that he believes what he said. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course not—who said anything about "writ[ing] as if it is certain that he believes what he said"? We are referring to this edit. The edit reads: Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that." Bus stop (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So if you agree that it proves nothing, what is the point of including it? HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

What I said was that he is not only a politician. Is he a cynical father? I don't think we have reason to believe that. Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

We are not trying to "prove" anything by writing a biography or by including any given piece of material. We are compiling reliably-sourced material on a variety of subjects. He is not only a politician. He has a daughter who chose a religion different from himself. His response to that was that he is "honored" by his daughter's choice of a religion other than his own. As we know religious identity sometimes has relevance. Ultimately we don't know the exact relevance if any in this instance. But I don't think such uncertainty argues against inclusion of material on this subject. Biographies of politicians can contain some material of a non-political nature. Yes, he is the president of the USA, but a reader trying to understand what makes him "tick" is I think interested in his response to his daughter's religious conversion. Bus stop (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

They won't learn much from that quote. Trump is smart enough to say the right thing in front of each audience. We are not discussing "His response". We are discussing one response. A highly predictable one. One that says nothing about what he actually believes. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

We are all "smart enough to say the right thing in front of each audience" therefore I don't know what your point is. Ta-Nehisi Coates points out that "words don't have meaning without context". If our words are spoken publicly then there is the understanding that they are intended for a wider audience as well. Trump spoke the words under consideration in this discussion to a "Jewish" audience with the full understanding that other audiences would hear them as well. It is not that the words don't have meaning outside of their original context but that the words are chosen in acknowledgement of the identity of the person or people spoken to. We all speak this way and it is not hypocritical. We tailor our language and what we say to presumed attributes of identity in a target audience. Readers don't mistakenly assume Trump told the group of Giraffe Aficionados of America that he is honored his daughter converted to Judaism. It is understood that there is an applicable context for almost all things that are said. You can call his assertion into question if you have a source showing that he is not quite honored to have his daughter convert to Judaism. But in the absence of any reason for a contrary understanding of the man's sentiments on this point, I think we just accept his words at face value. He is not known to be fiercely religious. An anodyne assumption is that he truly is honored by the daughter's conversion. On the one hand I didn't "agree that it proves nothing" but on the other hand I don't think the statement is enormously meaningful either. I think we include it because it constitutes standard biographical material. How did the non-Jewish father react to his daughter's conversion to Judaism? Answer: he said he was "honored". The daughter's conversion raises a logical question and the material under discussion addresses that question. And we know that in many quarters religion raises serious questions and sometimes raises people's hackles. It is hardly irrelevant to provide insight into how the subject of this biography approaches the potentially divisive topic of religion. This brief quote does not tell us all that may be applicable to Trump's understanding of religion or "identity" in general but it seems to illustrate tolerance of his daughter's conversion to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop, unless you are prepared to address the policy-based issue of NPOV and DUE WEIGHT for this very weakly-sourced incidental remark, please don't post in this section. I have previously seen you argue, against policy and ultimate consensus, to insinuate purported Jewish connections into various BLPs. We don't do that without testing such article text for NPOV (among other policies). Please read the entire page at WP:NPOV and post only relevant comments here in this section and any other (non-repetitive) comments somewhere else. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—from where do you derive that there is a violation of either WP:NPOV or WP:OR? We are discussing a reliably sourced quote from Trump addressing his feeling on his daughter's conversion to Judaism. Please be specific. How and why would the inclusion of this material be in violation of any policy including WP:UNDUE? The added material is one sentence long. How is it WP:UNDUE? Is it off-topic? In a "Religion" section of an article on a biography of a living person we don't mention a reaction to a child's conversion to another religion? Please tell me how that reasoning works. Or point to policy language. But please be specific. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way I did not initiate this discussion. It was well underway when I joined in. (And of course the material under discussion was added to the article by another editor even before the discussion got underway on the Talk page.) So please do not lay sole blame on me for "insinuat[ing] purported Jewish connections into this BLP. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"... where do you derive that there is a violation of either WP:NPOV or WP:OR?" Easy. WP:BALASP says: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." For the WP:OR violation, scroll down to my post that begins "In case anyone cares".- MrX 🖋 18:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, this material contains OR. The source says:

"Donald Trump proudly entered the dinner hall flanked by his wife Melania, his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Also in attendance were Jared’s parents, Charles and Seryl Kushner. At a Jewish Voice interview, Trump was asked how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children, Trump stated, “Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that.”"

Yet, in the article we have:

"Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "... I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that.""

JFG has conflated feelings about Jewish grandchildren with commentary about Ivanka's conversion to Judaism. That seems like patent WP:OR to me.- MrX 🖋 18:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My January 2017 edit was only copyediting prior content; see below. No idea who wrote this in the first place, and it does not matter. — JFG ^talk 08:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying you did it knowingly or on purpose, but it does matter. It needs to be changed to accurately reflect the source. Anyone?- MrX 🖋 10:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Kinda like, by the time there are grandchildren the cat is out of the bag. Good catch. It looks like his deflection to Ivanka might have been his way of dodging the question about his grandchildren. This quote was picked up by remarkably few RS, which usually number in the thousands even for what Trump had for lunch last week. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump proudly entered the dinner hall flanked by his wife Melania, his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Also in attendance were Jared’s parents, Charles and Seryl Kushner. At a Jewish Voice interview, Trump was asked how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children, Trump stated, “Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that.” This is a reliable source, is it not? In my opinion we can either quote that or paraphrase it. Bus stop (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Why did you post this? No one is refuting that it's not a reliable source. The content as currently written doesn't follow the source. We don't have to include it simply because it exists.- MrX 🖋 22:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The source can be followed if there is a will to follow it. Donald Trump is not Jewish. But he expresses, according to reliable sources, that he is "honored" to have Jewish progeny. This fits within a section of the article called the "Religion" section. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a source can be followed. This one shouldn't be. It's trite, and it's a very poor expression of a "religious view". - MrX 🖋 00:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Look, it’s not just a matter of what he said, or to whom, or what he meant by “honored”. Forget the quibbling over that stuff. This is basically a matter of his actions. There are Christians who would disown a daughter who married a Jew and converted to Judaism. There are others who would try to hush up their daughter’s conversion, treat it as something “we don’t talk about.” Trump is no such person. He obviously loves his daughter as much as he ever did, is still very proud of her, respects and embraces her religious choice, and accepts and loves his son-in-law and grandchildren. That says something important about Trump and how he regards religion. And it deserves a mention in the religion section. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

With regards to RS and WEIGHT, let's not forget BALANCE - we actually need to add more about his views considering all the accusations of bias and anti-Semitism. I found plenty of RS in a simple Google search using Donald Trump is proud of his Jewish daughter which brought up about 6,350,000. I thought the official WH statement was interesting, and could be used instead: "Anyone that knows the President understands that he takes great pride in having a Jewish daughter and Jewish grandchildren. His love and respect for the Jewish people extends way beyond his family, and into the heart of Jewish American communities." I found a quote by Ivanka in Vanity Fair: (Ivanka has told friends that her father wore a yarmulke at her wedding, and that “if my father had an anti-Semitic bone in his body, I would know about it.”) Then after Ivanka gave birth to Theodore, Trump was quoted in The Times of Israel: “I love Israel. I’ve been with Israel so long in terms of — I’ve received some of my greatest honors from Israel. My father before me, incredible. My daughter, Ivanka, is about to have a beautiful Jewish baby,” Trump said. I think that pretty well covers it as far as notability and relevance to his BLP for inclusion. It's obviously an important part of his life, addresses the false allegations about his being anti-Semitic, and it has value on a global scale as it relates to his support of Israel and US foreign affairs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, there's a bit too much OR in your statement to use it for an editing decision. But just to follow that line of reasoning, I think what this shows is equally likely that Trump thinks l) religion is nonsense and he doesn't care about it at all - or 2) that the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support -- or maybe he thinks these guys have got some money because, well... you know. But Melanie what about DUE WEIGHT? This is an insignificant interview, one of thousands Trump gave in 2015-6 and it was not picked up by RS. It has about 300 google hits. Most of Trump's memorable statements have at least a thousand times as many. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I'm surprised that would make an argument like that. It completely ignores the dearth of sources that have bothered to take note of Trump's reply to a softball question. Your argument seems to be founded on rather convoluted hypothetical of what Trump could have said. That doesn't jibe with WP:V. I'm also surprised that you would ignore that rather glaring WP:OR introduced by JFG. As currently written, the material is a misrepresentation of what the source actual says. - MrX 🖋 00:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: I did not introduce OR at all. The edit you referenced[14] was trimming the section on religion, and the reference to Trump's response was already there before my edit. Prior text was: In reference to daughter Ivanka, who converted to Judaism before her marriage to Jared Kushner, Trump said… I changed it to Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Jared Kushner, Trump said… That was straightforward copyediting. Please be mindful of mischaracterizing work by your fellow editors. — JFG ^talk 08:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I stand by what I wrote. You changed the meaning of the sentence from "a reference to Ivanka" to "a reference to Ivanka's conversion to Judaism". Those are not the same thing. One is a person; the other is a conversion. The source did not say anything about Trump honoring Ivanka's conversion. Facts matter.- MrX 🖋 10:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me try that again, both of you, and then I'm done. I'm not at all interested in what he may have said ("one insignificant interview", "Trump's reply to a softball question", etc.). I'm not interested in the particular quote you all have been arguing over for thousands of bytes. Forget all that. I'm interested in what he has DONE and continues to do: love and accept his daughter and her religious affiliation. That's a life decision on his part; it's not something he once said. As for the claim that he only said it to appeal to one small demographic (and SPECIFICO, shame on you for characterizing that demographic as "unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn"), that's frankly ridiculous. The truth is that he takes a political risk by embracing her Jewishness; there are many "Christians" among his base (here’s one example) who believe that Jews do not go to heaven and would not at all understand how he can accept his daughter being one of those people. He doesn't care what they think; he loves and is proud of his daughter. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie see the unwashed reference: [15]. The Orthodox of Brooklyn are not Trump Tower wannabe's. As a matter of fact, they are more devoted to study and prayer. Two activities for which we can safely say Trump has never shown the slightest interest or respect. Anyway, you continue to present your OR about religion, Christians and Jews. And how big of him it is to take the moneyed real estate heir Kuschner into the family. But that's all your OR and it almost sounds like you think it should be in the article even with no source, instead of just a miserably defective source. BTW, didja know that the Evangelicals are counting on the Jews to precipitate the Rapture. Yes, that Rapture. The bottom line is, we treat every statement by a politician to a group with skepticism, especially in a room full of prospective campaign donors. We treat Trump's statements with heightened skepticism because we know he's a fibber🤦‍♀️. And we ignore random statements that have not been picked up by mainstream RS to establish DUE WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—I think you misunderstand WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. That policy has nothing to do with whether a source is "mainstream" or not. We are discussing a quote from Trump. He says "Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that."[16] At WP:UNDUE WEIGHT we read "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Is there another quote from Trump expressing a different "viewpoint"? Has Trump said something elsewhere that calls into question the above expressed sentiment? No, I don't think so. Then WP:UNDUE WEIGHT has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN: I had to blink several times in disbelief to absorb what I read when I saw this: "the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support" I'm calling this out as anti-Semitism and completely inappropriate. Redactable, isn't it? Per a recent redaction on this very page an hour ago we can't refer to Kim Jong-Un as a "murderous dictator" but it's acceptable for an editor to refer to Jewish Hasidim as "unwashed" and "dumb"??? I appreciate you calling out SPECIFICO on these anti-Semitic statements she wrote here but am flabbergasted the comments are being allowed to stand. And without more of an admonishment that will actually mean something to SPECIFICO (and every Jewish person she just egregiously insulted). Do we need to start pinging admins and editors who we know are Jewish to get their opinions or am I calling out an elephant in the room that really isn't there? Help me, Rhonda -- I'm just still so shocked I don't know which end is up in Wikipedia any more. What the hell has happened to this place? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Blink all you want, but anyone who reads my words as written will see that you've misrepresented them to sound as if I were denigrating the folks with whom I speculated Trump might have little long-term affinity. Don't misrepresent other editors words -- especially in ways that just coincidentally make the misrepresented editor look bad. SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's offensive and disgusting. I don't care how much you try to explain it away. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You obviously still haven't read what I wrote. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I thought it was possible that SPECIFICO was trying to convey the scorn she assumes Trump feels toward these folks - that she was in effect putting that kind of language in his mouth. Maybe not, since she replied here defending the comment as referring to the “great unwashed”, i.e., the lower classes, the working class. Yes, it was offensive in context but I don’t think it should be redacted; I think it should stand along with the commentary on it. And this should be about enough commentary, let’s not get all off track about it.

SPECIFICO, yes, I know I have been making my argument without supporting it with sources. I wasn’t proposing language for the article, just saying why I think it should be included - and yes, the quote you are so scornful of would be perfectly good as a source, you have yet to suggest a policy-based reason for rejecting it, just that you don't think he meant it. To repeat my point one more time: what he said is not important, it’s how he is living that matters. You may find this hard to accept, but I think in this case Trump is not putting on a show; I think he is behaving according to how he actually feels. I am sure you will dispute this since you don’t give him credit for ever doing a genuine thing in his life. --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been crystal clear as to why it fails PAG, as has MrX. And we have both done so more than once. Wanna talk David Duke now and Charlottesville and Gary Cohn"s rebuke? Also relevant to religion. SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—tolerance of religion is a subject appropriately treated in a "Religion" section of a biography, just as religious intolerance would be appropriately treated in a "Religion" section of a biography. You are objecting to the Jewish Voice not being a "mainstream" source. But it is a reliable source. That means that Trump said what he is quoted as saying in response to the question that the source says he was asked. It is reliably sourced that in response to being asked "how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children" he responded "Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that."[17] I would suggest adding one sentence to the "Religion" section of our article reading "In response to being asked how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children Trump responded "Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that." We are not writing a hatchet job on Trump. You have revealed your non-neutral views with such statements as "Trump thinks religion is nonsense and he doesn't care about it at all—or that the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support -- or maybe he thinks these guys have got some money"[18]. Believe it or not one does not write biographies with a chip on one's shoulder. There is no good reason in this instance to omit material supportive of a laudatory trait in the subject of our biography. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

How about a new approach?

I am very, very tired of this discussion focusing entirely on one quote from one source, describing it as a “meaningless curtsy to the Jewish readers of a fringy Brooklyn Jewish weekly”, along with the implication that he only said it that one time to pander to a small group of people. I did a quick search for other times and occasions when he has boasted about his Jewish daughter and family:

• In front of a Jewish crowd: February 2015 at the “Jewish 100” gala in NYC.[19][20] BTW the quote on that occasion was “I have a Jewish daughter. This wasn’t in the plan, but I’m very glad it happened.”

• In front of a Conservative crowd: March 2016 [21]

• On a CNN debate: March 2016 [22]

This is not something he is just saying to pander to Jewish crowds; he says it to general audiences. His apparently happy acceptance and even pride at having Jewish children demonstrate religious tolerance. Religious tolerance is a part of his view of religion. That's why it belongs in the Religion section. How about we get away from that one quote, and reword it to something like this:

Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner; Trump has expressed pride in his "Jewish daughter" and "beautiful Jewish grandchildren".

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support True, accurate, and in line with the RSs. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, Like the first cite, those are also Jewish or Israeli publications. There are dozens of stories in Haaretz, Jerusalem Post and other mainstream Israeli publications as well as American mainstream and Jewish publications that discuss Trump's tinge of anti-Semitism. These are much more widely covered and better cited than the ones you linked. Are those same events and statments covered your links also widely reported in the mainstream mass media? Those would be much more convincing citations. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

What we really should do is drop this entire discussion for a week and come back refreshed. But before we go on break, what do we mean by the "Religion" section? Do we mean Trump's faith, do we mean his attitudes and thoughts about religion, or do we mean his policies and interactions with various religious communities? Let's agree on the scope and then take a break to gather content and citations we can show and tell. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

drop this entire discussion for a week Why? I've just proposed a new wording and new sources; let's see what people have to say about it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It has the same problems, and frankly no new insights are going to come from the same old gang of us here. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's find out. @Signedzzz, JFG, HiLo48, Markbassett, MrX, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Atsme, Scjessey, Objective3000, Emir of Wikipedia, Bus stop, Galobtter, Rreagan007, NoMoreHeroes, and Power~enwiki: Any thoughts about this alternate wording with better sources? I have set it up properly so we can see the sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

If necessary we'll go to the noticeboards and RfC. This is self-serving UNDUE trivia at best. At worst it would be WP taking cynical and insulting pandering at face value and rebroadcasting it. And finally, the much more noteworhty subjects of his acoomodations and dogwhistling to anti-semitic hate groups, his anti-Muslim campaigning, his ignorant posturing about his Christian "faith" and a lot of other widely discussed, reliably sourced material would go into the article long before we inform our readers that Trump is happy with his grandchild. Melanie, nobody really signed on to your arguments in this whole matter and you are not taking the serious problems into account with this renewed push. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"his ignorant posturing about his Christian "faith"..." Wow, here's an obviously needed reminder: WP:BLP and "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, we know what you think. You have repeated your opinion many, many times in this series of threads - three times, with increasing intensity, just on this new subthread. I would like to hear what the rest of the people here think. If "nobody signs on with my arguments", that will quickly become clear. Please let it happen. --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't been involved in this discussion, so forgive me if I don't understand the nuance of all of this, but it seems like we're proposing using a quote by the subject in order to prove a point. How is that not WP:SYNTH? Should we not find a neutral source that discusses Trump's religious views? Bradv 03:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes MelanieN, this should be in the article. Not positive in precisely the manner you have written but close.--MONGO 04:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. One of the four sources you listed above (47, International Business Times.) cites the same Algemeiner 100 gala in 2015 as our original source, the Jewish Voice article; the other three link to the same Israel times article which also quotes Trump at that same Algemeiner 100 gala. Reminder: Trump and his father stuck to the "we're Swedish" myth until the Nineties precisely because of their Jewish tenants and business associates; nothing to do with tolerance, just business. He says whatever he thinks will meet with the approval of the crowd he happens to be addressing. His apparently happy acceptance and even pride at having Jewish children emonstrate religious tolerance. Sounds like POV to me, the operative word being "apparently," and Ivanka and her conversion (because Kushner wouldn't marry a Gentile but that's even more off-topic) are not the subject here. I don't feel strongly about the current sentence or your proposed rewording (substantially the same as the current one), but it's been challenged. So shouldn't it be removed until this is settled? And since this discussion does not seem to be headed for a consensus, maybe we should all agree on acceptable wording for an RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

He says whatever he thinks will meet with the approval of the crowd he happens to be addressing I have to disagree with that. Of the three instances I listed above, in one case he was addressing a Jewish audience; in the second he was addressing CPAC, a conservative organization not known for having a large number of Jewish members; and in the third he was participating in a nationally televised debate. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

CPAC - Please see CPAC: WHERE ISRAEL IS AN APPLAUSE LINE – AND MUCH MORE this Jerusalem Post article discusses attitudes toward Israel at the right-wing organization and the problematic conflation of Jewish religion with Zionism and with the Netanyahu strain of Israeli politics. He was not talking to the ASPCA or something obviously neutral. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• That is fine with me, MelanieN. Thank you for summoning me. It is well-said, the way you worded it. The sentiment is the thing that matters. Trump, who is not Jewish, holds no animosity to Jews being within his inner circle of family—namely his daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren. This is a trait worth noting in the biography of Trump. Jews and Christians have not always gotten along. Sometimes when children marry outside of an identity—a Christian identity or a Jewish identity—negative feelings emerge and a rift develops. The opposite appears to be the case with Trump and I think this is a noteworthy facet of the subject of the biography. I like your wording. Before the semicolon your wording tends to be informational; after the semicolon your wording tends to be sentimental. I endorse: Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner; Trump has expressed pride in his "Jewish daughter" and "beautiful Jewish grandchildren". Bus stop (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• I would also like to note that it's not just Ivanka who converted and married a Jewish guy. Don Jr. also married a Jewish woman, which means that according to Jewish law, 8 of Trump's 9 grandchildren are also Jewish. And I think his daughter Tiffany is also dating a Jewish guy. Also, Trump's closest mentor back in the 80s was Jewish and a number of his top executives in his companies and advisors have also been Jewish. The idea that Trump has some kind of problem with Jews is honestly rather ridiculous. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't care whether Trump is anti-semitic or not; I'm saying it's off-topic for the Religion section. If we're going to use the sentence as "balance" for his biases (whether alleged or real) - and that's what I'm hearing from the pro-voices here - let's put it in Racial views. As for Trump's mentor Roy Cohn, he was both Jewish and anti-semitic and gay and homophobic (Forward), and also "vicious" and "brutal" (Trump's words, Politico), - go figure. And when Cohn was dying of Aids, Trump severed all ties to him. Quoting the Forward's Lana Adler: Trump’s outright bigotry during this election, specifically against Latinos and Muslims, as well as his appeal to the blatant racism and anti-Semitism of a large, vocal segment of his followers, is easy to track back to Cohn and his Red Scare era tactics. ::BTW, why do you think that Vanessa Trump is Jewish? I haven't found any indication that she was brought up in the Jewish faith and according to Jewish law she is not because her mother isn't. If Ivanka hadn't converted, her children would also not be Jewish. It doesn't matter whether the father is Jewish or not. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support MelanieN's proposal + possibly sourced discussion of additional information provided by Rreagan007. — JFG ^talk 07:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - it’s what I proposed yesterday, and provided example sources. There is absolutely no valid reason based on our PAGs to not include such an important aspect of the man’s life. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The aspect of the man's life we are seeing is what he said to a particular audience. It proves nothing about what he actually believes. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Under this theory, we could remove all of the "Racial views" section, because what other people have commented on Trump's words and deeds "prove nothing about what he actually believes". Do you want to go down this path? Unless humanity develops mind-reading capabilities, nobody can ever prove what someone actually believes. We must stick to what they say and how they act. — JFG ^talk 08:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. But we must also makes sure that's what we say is the case. We cannot know how racist Trump is, but we can certainly report notable statements that sound racist, or that appear to be pandering to racists for their votes. We should do the same for any politician. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Have we labeled him philosemitic, HiLo48? In my perception you are engaged in handwringing, but I am not sure over what. MelanieN has suggested actual words, which I have endorsed. The wording suggested (Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner; Trump has expressed pride in his "Jewish daughter" and "beautiful Jewish grandchildren") is noninterpretative. We are attributing no qualities to Trump beyond those expressed by Trump. Trump says "Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that." Has he not expressed pride in his "Jewish daughter" and "beautiful Jewish grandchildren"? Bus stop (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"Expressed pride" is reinterpreting and placing a positive value on what he said. Wh must do no more than state what he said. AND STOP TALKING ABOUT ME!!!!!!! I am not the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Being proud of your daughter and loving your grandchildren proves nothing, one way or another; they're family, warts and all. Having Jewish employees, business associates proves nothing, one way or another; it's business, the art of the deal, the same as dealing with the Mafia.

JFG, you need to take another look at the Racial views section. The first (he was accused of), third (were seen as implying ..., remarks were condemned as racist), and last paragraphs (racially insensitive statements have been condemned by... but accepted by his supporters ..., several studies and surveys have stated ...) do mention reactions as such, but mostly that section recounts the well-documented things he has said and in many instances repeated over and over again. So fine, let's put his remarks about Ivanka and the grandkids and his "I'm the least racist" in there for - uh - balance(?). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x—you say "Being proud of your daughter and loving you grandchildren proves nothing, one way or another; they're family, warts and all. Having Jewish employess, business associates proves nothing, one way or another; it's business, the art of the deal, the same as dealing with the Mafia." I didn't say anything about proving anything. I don't think we ever seek ironclad proof of anything. I think we generally seek verifiability. I didn't say anything about Trump having Jewish employees or business associates. Who are you responding to? Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I was addressing JFG and also Rreagan because JFG's vote referred to that editor. Rreagan wrote that Cohn, top executives at the Trump Organization, and other Trump advisors were Jewish and that therefore Trump having some kind of problem with Jews is rather ridiculous. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include: it's crucial to have Trump's own views in his own words about religion in the article, preferable in the Religion section but Racial section would do.– Lionel^(talk) 10:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

What we should include is Trump's own words about his views. There is a difference. HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - MelanieN, I have a great deal of respect for you as an editor and an admin, and very much appreciate your effort to resolve this dispute. The sources you found are a slight improvement over the single, obscure, misinterpreted source of the current material. That said, we should not be jumping though hoops to try to create a beautiful narrative based on Trump boasting about his Jewish daughter. I am very disappointed that some editors would go out of their way to support this, while objecting to including a major Trump policy issue being discussed at the bottom of this page in spite of continual international, in-depth coverage in mainstream sources. Collectively, I think we have thrown our content policies and guidelines to the curb, in favor of gilding the subject's life with with the thinnest of sources and creating a work that overlaps fiction. At the very least, I insist on a formal close on this and the previous related discussion, with the hope that an uninvolved editor will weed out the WP:ILIKEIT votes, and actually review the underlying sources and policy-based arguments. - MrX 🖋 11:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"we should not be jumping though hoops to try to create a beautiful narrative based on Trump boasting about his Jewish daughter" Nor are we supposed to be doing a hatchet job. "I am very disappointed that some editors would go out of their way to support this, while objecting to including a major Trump policy issue being discussion at the bottom of this page in spite of continual international, in-depth coverage in mainstream sources." I haven't even weighed into that discussion. One question at that discussion seems to concern whether to put such material in this article or the Presidency of Donald Trump article. Finally, you are referring to a quote from Trump as "the thinnest of sources". No, it is not thin at all. That source is entirely substantial for the material it is intended to support. The source quotes Trump as saying "Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that." Our wording being considered for inclusion is Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner; Trump has expressed pride in his "Jewish daughter" and "beautiful Jewish grandchildren". Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - As I said before, I hold no strong view on this matter. In my opinion (and I have no sources to back this up), Trump expressed these words as part of a pander to Jewish-friendly voters. Like every politician running for higher offices, it is necessary for them to establish their "Jewdentials" (my own neologism). My main reason for opposition is that it adds nothing of value to the article whatsoever, and since we are always seeking to trim the fat I regard this as a perfect candidate for exclusion. We all know that Trump is not a religious person, and he only cares about religion when it suits him. There's scant coverage of this, and I find MrX's arguments very persuasive. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  "Like every politician running for higher offices, it is necessary for them to establish their "Jewdentials" (my own neologism)." I just do not know what to say to that. Despicable.MONGO 12:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Scjessey, I agree with your assessment of Trump as not being religious and only caring about religion when it serves his purposes, but I think you need to strike that neologism,

Scjessey It seems that you didn't invent that term. An writer for a website in Freiburg, Germany, who goes by the name Nightlife-Guru used it in 2013 when he described an event featuring Henryk Broder:

Immer wieder breiten Redner ihre [neologism] in Form teils gar „unendlich vieler“ jüdischer Freunde und Verwandte sowie diverser Israelbesuche aus … Over and over again, speakers present their [neologism] in the form of "countless" Jewish friends and relatives as well as various visits to Israel …

Original or not, it just feels off. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• and you too, Mongo. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• If I could be sarcastic for a moment, "Jewdentials" is the sort of highly creative terminology we need more of around here. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Explanation for "Jewdentials" - Just so everyone is clear, I am not going to be striking the neologism. It is absolutely not anti-Semitism, as some people seem to have evidently misconstrued. Politicians fall over themselves to be pro-Israel when running for higher offices. Years ago (I don't have a reference because of a deleted website, but it was during AIPAC 2008 when Obama was doing it; however, I used it in a 2012 tweet), I invented a neologism (that was a play on the word "credentials") designed to be a shorthand term for this peculiar behavior by US politicians. "Israeldentials" doesn't work, so I came up with "Jewdentials". It does not attack Israel or people of the Jewish faith, because it describes the behavior of NON Jews/Israelis seeking office. In fact, that was made quite clear in my comment above, so I really don't know what the fuss is about. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I accept your explanation that you didn’t invent the neologism to attack Jews (I think most people reading it got the "credentials" origin) and that you did not intend for it to sound anti-Semitic. It’s a pejorative term, however, and it’s uncomfortably close to the far-right’s use of Jew as an adjective and as a verb. See elephant test.

• Oppose per MrX, SPECIFICO and Scjessey. The sources may imply that the quote demonstrates Trump's pro-Israel stance, but no suggestion that it shows anything about his views on religion, which is what you want to use it for, so that is OR. Meanwhile, there is apparently no space in the article to mention the Trump administration family separation policy for which there is no shortage of sources [23] [24]... zzz (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have no idea what DJT thinks about religion and I don’t think the sources tell us. It also doesn’t tell us anything about his overall religious tolerance. Evangelicals, part of his base, have become more tolerant of Judaism because they believe Israel is related to the second coming. But, that doesn’t mean that they are tolerant of other religions. Placing this text in the religion section suggests a level of tolerance that may or may not exist and hasn’t been documented in RS. O3000 (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The argument here (that these statements demonstrate that religious tolerance is a part of his view of religion) is unequivocal WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If you want to imply that, find a (non-opinion) source that says it. Without such a source, this has no place in the religion section because it provides no meaningful information about his personal religious views. There are numerous sources that have gone into depth about Trump's views on religion; the idea that we would need to rely on WP:SYNTH by reading tea-leaves regarding his relationship with his daughter is silly. --Aquillion (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to distinguish between any arguments made on this Talk page and actual text of material found in the article. The text presently in the article reads: Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "... I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that." Where is the WP:SYNTH? It is an assertion adequately supported by a source. Any editor can present any argument they choose on a Talk page. What we are concerned with generally-speaking is the propriety or impropriety of the text in the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This has already been answered. Here it is again:

The source says:

"Donald Trump proudly entered the dinner hall flanked by his wife Melania, his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Also in attendance were Jared’s parents, Charles and Seryl Kushner. At a Jewish Voice interview, Trump was asked how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children, Trump stated, “Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that.”"

Yet, in the article we have:

"Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "... I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that.""

- MrX 🖋 16:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what point you are making, MrX. Is there alternative language that you feel would be preferable for placement in our article? Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You asked "Where is the WP:SYNTH?" I showed you exactly where it is. It is not adequately supported by the source. No, I oppose this material for reasons I've already stated.- MrX 🖋 17:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You showed me exactly where the SYNTH is? You must not be trying very hard. Why not use your command of the English language to explain what you see as being SYNTH? Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I had hoped quoting the source and the article, and highlighting the problem would have sufficed, but let me try another approach. The authors of the text currently in the article took ""how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children"" from the source, combined it with the common knowledge that Ivanka converted to Judiasm, and came up with this synthesized text: ""Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism"". The source doesn't say Trump was referring to his daughter's conversion to Judaism and neither can we.- MrX 🖋 17:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict - MrX says exactly what I was going to say.) MrX makes a good point. This comment of Trump's was not in response to a question "how do you feel about your daughter converting to Judaism?" It was in response to "how do you feel about having Jewish grandchildren?". To that extent, the introductory clause of the sentence currently in the article is SYNTH. I have proposed alternate wording, above, that gets around that problem. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN—Please examine the source and the material it is intended to support:

His daughter Ivanka is married to Jared Kushner and converted to Judaism before her marriage. Trump told this year’s AIPAC convention and later, CNN, “Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren, I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that.” [25]

Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "... I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that."

At the top is the source. At the bottom is the wording presently in the article. There is no WP:SYNTH. The source at the top is completely supportive of the material at the bottom. Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The reason why it wasn't "caught" before now is because it doesn't exist. We are not extracting an idea that is not explicitly stated in the source. Trump is quoted as saying "... I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that." That is indeed a direct reference to "his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner". No new idea has been created and nothing "original" has been asserted. He indeed is referring to his daughter's "conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner" when he says "... I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that." That is not SYNTH and that is not "original research". The "two" facts are one and the same. They are not two facts at all. They are one and the same. On the one hand you have the fact that the daughter is Jewish. On the other hand you have the fact that the daughter converted to Judaism. Those are not two different facts. He is referring to his daughter's conversion to Judaism when he says "I am very honored by that". Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The Faith of Donald J. Trump - more content for Religion

This recent book provides extensive thoughtful and deep insights into Trump's religious core and beliefs.

It is a WP:NOTABLE book with extensive secondary content and has been reviewed in major publications. [26] [27] [28].

Also, Christian Leaders Call Out the Heresy of Trumpism.

SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump and Islam - more for Religion section

Some mainstream references to consider:
Anti-Muslim Extremists Retweeted by Trump Are Convicted of Hate Crimes

Hate Crimes Spiked After Trump’s Anti-Muslim Tweets, Study Finds

Trump’s surprising Ramadan message to Muslims

In Trump’s America, ‘acting Muslim’ is more dangerous than ever.

SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

References related to concerns and controversies RE:anti-Semitism

Donald Trump’s anti-Semitism controversies: A timeline - The Times of Israel

Trump administration and the family separation policy

I think we need a brief paragraph about Trump administration family separation policy, probably under Presidency>Domestic policy>Immigration. The great southern border wall has disappeared from the zeitgeist, replaced by images of children separated from their parents—some lost in the system, some in cages, others wrapped in foil like baked potatoes[29]. Thoughts?- MrX 🖋 11:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe in the Presidency article though it would allow us to clear up some points such as "On Sunday, the facility was holding 751 family members and 258 youth. The facility was divided into separate wings: one for unaccompanied children, one for adults, and one for mothers and fathers with children." from your new link above. Why does anyone think the children are separated? If a person is violating federal law and returning illegally after being deported, then they are subject to felony prosecution and children cannot be housed with adults facing such prosecution. Also...baked potatoes? Ever see a space blanket?--MONGO 11:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"The Trump administration said on Friday that it had separated 1,995 children from parents facing criminal prosecution for unlawfully crossing the border over a six-week period that ended last month, as President Trump sought to shift blame for the widely criticized practice that has become the signature policy of his aggressive immigration agenda."
— The New York Times

"Mrs. [Laura] Bush, the last Republican first lady, spoke out forcefully against the practice on Sunday in a rare foray into domestic politics, comparing it to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II."
— The New York Times

"Inside a converted Walmart Supercenter about 6 miles from the U.S. border with Mexico, nearly 1,500 young immigrant boys have found their first home in the U.S.The shelter for immigrant youth in the corner of South Texas opened last year with a capacity of about 1,200. It expanded last month and had fewer than 50 beds to spare on Wednesday afternoon."
— The Wall Street Journal

"Amid the criticism, Kirstjen Nielsen, head of the Department of Homeland Security, slammed the media on Sunday, tweeting “We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period."
— Fox News

"“We don’t want kids to be separated from their parents,” House speaker Paul Ryan said on Thursday."
— National Review

"Trump has falsely blamed the separations on a law he said was written by Democrats. But the separations instead largely stem from a "zero-tolerance" policy announced with fanfare last month by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. "
— Chicago Tribune

"The signs of splintering of GOP support come after longtime Trump ally, the Rev. Franklin Graham, called the policy “disgraceful.” "
— Time

"A new House Republican bill that supporters claimed would end the White House's new policy of separating children from parents at the border would not actually halt the policy, experts told NBC News."
— NBC News

- MrX 🖋 12:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course they're separated. Even Kellyanne Conway used this language. O3000 (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes they are...and this belongs in the Presidency article if anywhere. As DHS chief Nielsen said "this is not policy" (to separate children from their parents) its just an end result of the zero tolerance policy as opposed to the ineffective catch and release policy. You cannot house minors with adults facing felony prosecution.MONGO 12:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand the distinction between policy and end result of a recent policy. Definitely belongs in the presidency article. Probably requires a sentence or two here as immigration is discussed in this article. O3000 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not new at all...the press just seized it for headlines. Did everyone forget that in 2014 we had unaccompanied minors housed in chain linked fenced areas in abandoned warehouses and had foil (space blankets) issued? As show here? If laws are broken even by US citizens, does anyone think the children will await trial or serve out period of incarceration along with their parents? Children even then are placed in foster care if no adult relative can care for the child.MONGO 12:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's new. Specifically, it came into existence on April 6th, 2018, when Sessions and Trump specifically announced a policy change (with other members of the administration stating explicitly that this was intended to purposefully traumatize families to act as a "deterrent").Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, blaming it on the press is unconvincing. We use RS, and coverage is extensive. Even two Republican presidential wives have provided unsolicited comments. O3000 (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can we please stop blaming sources for reporting significant news? Also, can we stay focused on noteworthy content for this article, not past president's articles? Thanks. - MrX 🖋 12:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discuss the politics of and media spin of the whole thing at the presidential page where it would be appropriate to quibble about it. The issue barely deserves a mention in this article and certainly shouldn't take up so many bytes here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The ongoing pattern of racial, religious, and ethnic discrimination and political pandering to white separatists and other elements of Trump's political "base" is a key fact of his life. It has long roots and has been extensively discussed by RS. This biography needs to reflect these RS facts and narratives about him. This article is full of trivia and Trump media posturing, but it fails to present a coherent NPOV picture of its subject. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) above in another thread (Personal attack removed) and are now lecturing on religious and other discrimination. Priceless. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks and stop derailing discussions with this childish hair pulling.- MrX 🖋 13:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

media spin If you have a problem with RS, take it to RS/N. O3000 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discuss content, not editors.- MrX 🖋 14:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SPECIFICO, don't remove comments you dislike and dishonestly refer to them as personal attacks just so you can get around policy on WP:TPG. Did you, or did you not, write the following with zero explanation and no qualification? "the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support" If anyone else had written it, say for instance someone you perceive to be Conservative/Republican/Libertarian, you would have been all over them, taking them to AN/I or probably submitting an Arb enforcement request, demanding they be blocked - probably indefinitely. The truth is, what you wrote is anti-Semitic in nature. Now, if you did it without realizing how it would be seen as an insensitive racial slur, I can accept that. But you have not once said you made a mistake in posting it without further explanation. You've only made reference to where the terminology comes from - and in my book, that's not good enough. Why? Because I know you and several others who follow your lead would be having a heyday over anyone in the group you see as your wiki-enemies writing the exact same thing. This is the last time I will mention this incident on this talk page, but it's not the last time I'm going to mention it altogether. If you admit your error and sincerely apologize for offending with what you wrote, that would go a long way toward making this right. Deleting talk page comments as personal attacks, though... that's not the right way to deal with those very offensive comments. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a diff to that? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the DIFF. I am shocked that it's still there and shocked that SPECIFICO didn't apologize. Here is the diff and I would hope that SPECIFICO's "allies" would repudiate that post. In my opinion, that comment is block worthy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm—I'm sure it's being discussed there as well. Can you cite any policy-based reasons for not wanting to include a significant Trump policy in this Trump article, keeping in mind that this article already includes policy material on energy, climate, deregulation, Cuba(?!), Iran, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Afghanistan, ISIS, Syria, Tax cuts, Keystone XL, border wall, DACA, NAFTA, TPP, WTO, LMNOP...? Phew! sorry, I ran out of breath there.- MrX 🖋 13:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The reliable sources also indicate this is not new and is not policy. The only difference is the Trump administration is upholding federal law and the previous ones did not. Wording would have to include something along the lines of "a more rigorous enforcement of federal immigration laws led to an increase in family separations which were criticized by both Democrats and Republicans." I think even that would belong in the Presidency article but it would reflect the facts as well as sources since this is not a new thing, just an escalation.MONGO 13:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You haven't cited a single reliable source to support your argument; I've cited eight. This enhanced enforcement has been compared to Japanese internment during WWII (the big one). That's the important takeaway, not some diversion about upholding federal law.- MrX 🖋 13:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX one of your own sources, that of the DHS chief speaking where she said this is Not Policy you forget that one? I did cite the CNN story from 2014 or did you not see it?MONGO 14:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That’s simply a claim by the administration. O3000 (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

And ironically, it's a claim by the same person who testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee trying to provide cover for Trump during shithole-gate.[30][31] She is not credible. - MrX 🖋 14:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You provided the reference, not I. Now cause it doesn't fit the narrative its not reliable? How odd.MONGO 15:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I never said the source was not reliable; I said Nielsen is not credible and I backed it with sources, like this one.- MrX 🖋 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Associated Press:[32] "This pressure is coming as White House officials have tried to distance themselves from the policy. Trump blames Democrats falsely for the situation. The administration put the policy in place and could easily end it after it has led to a spike in cases of split and distraught families." zzz (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"The reliable sources also indicate this is not new and is not policy." Utterly false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Not new. See 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

Not Trump Administration policy. Happened during Clinton and then Bush.

The Trump Administration policy is merely to enforce the law still and currently in place. If legislators don't like the law, they have the power, collectively, to change it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

BS.

"Not new. See 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007." - BS. the Flores Agreement says nothing about separating children from their parents.

"Not Trump Administration policy. Happened during Clinton and then Bush." - BS. No, it did not "happen during Clinton and then Bush" (you forgot "but Obama!" in there). Yes children were detained, but these were unaccompanied children, not families being broken up, mothers having their kids taken away "to give them a bath" then being told "your family is over, you'll never see your kids again".

"The Trump Administration policy is merely to enforce the law still and currently in place. " - BS. The law was being enforced all these years without having to resort to child abuse. The law says nothing about separating families. The entire thing started on April 6th, when Sessions announced a new policy.

You're trying to excuse the inexcusable and should really reevaluate what kind of a person you want to be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

OR/SYNTH. Let's use RS. O3000 (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't confuse laws with (enforcement) policies. They are different. As I cited from the Chicago Tribune, "Trump has falsely blamed the separations on a law he said was written by Democrats." - MrX 🖋 13:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

When any adminstration other than the Trump’s does anything the media portrays as negative, the reasons for exclusion resonate except as it applies to Trump. How can anyone not see that bias is a factor? Why does this remind me of the Comey double-standard? Laws are laws - enforcement of those laws has obviously become politicized and sensationalized by clickbait media, most of which are proven to be 90% negative toward Trump. Ironically, some of the very same media who attempted to circulate images of children in fenced cages, blamed Trump when the images were actually from the Obama administration. Nancy Pelosi is heading south to check out the conditions asylum seekers are being housed. It’s about time - maybe Congress will enact new immigration laws as a result. In the interim, enough already with the back and forth here, all of which is based on biased media reporting to appeal to human compassion (more like propaganda), none of which to date is supported by factual evidence, and none of it focuses on the current law - which is an enumerated power granted only to Congress and is the responsibility of the departments within the (DOJ) to enforce. For Pete’s sake, some of the top members of the DOJ are currently under criminal investigation, and Trump is taking the rap for that, too. If he tries to correct the problems within the DOJ, his efforts will likely be sensationalized negatively by the media as interference with the Russian collusion investigation.

Bottomline, if we do include any of this material, it has to be in a dispassionate tone, avoiding SOAPBOX by basing it entirely on the facts - not opinions - and with careful adherence to NPOV, particularly WEIGHT & BALANCE. Yes, from a human perspective it is sad, NO it is not Trump’s fault - this problem is the result of laws passed by Congress and signed into law by prior presidents. Material about immigration actually belongs in a US immigration article - not in the Trump bio simply because the biased media wants to blame Trump for everything, including the mistakes of prior admins. Oh, and ask yourselves honestly if we allow such material in the Trump BLP, are we going to include the related information in the Bush & Obama administrations where the problems began and were not properly handled, especially considering they should be considered equally at fault? If the answer to that question is no, then leave it out of this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy?

Should the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy? The following is proposed:

In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" policy overturning previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families unlawfully crossing into the U.S. with children. By the sixth week, nearly 2000 children had been separated from their parents, culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded. Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law.

References

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. - MrX 🖋 16:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

---

• Support Concise, well sourced, extensive coverage, clearly an important aspect of material already in the article. WP:RS and WP:DUE are covered. O3000 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support "... and falsely blamed Democrats for his own administration's policy", as widely reported in RS. zzz (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Not seeing this as biography suitable but maybe acceptable in a more neutral form on the Presidency article. The section also reads as if all oppose Trump...when many conservatives are in agreement with this policy. [33] and the section needs to be clear that this new policy is merely a stricter enforcement of existing laws which were ignored by prior administrations. [34] regardless, this does not belong in this BLP anyway.MONGO 17:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Not appropriate for this article. For the DJT presidential article, and neutrally written, yes. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It's brief, relevant, factual, neutrally written, and backed by numerous sources that have covered this material extensively. The policy was enacted by Trump, which is exactly why it belongs in this article with the rest of his presidential actions and policies that we so gleefully include. Trump, and handful of his acolytes, have attempted to blame Democrats for the policy, which of course is another in long series of alternative facts (AKA, lies). The policy has caused a backlash from Republican stalwarts like Laura Bush who compared it with American internment of Japanese during WW2 (the big one).- MrX 🖋 17:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support for inclusion in the immigration section, but like others commenting here I don't like “Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law”; that wording is not supported by the sources. It should say "and falsely blamed Democrats for his own administration's policy" or "Trump falsely blamed the separations on the Democrats" or something similar. That’s what he keeps saying and tweeting, and that’s what the sources are reporting. Also, it isn't really clear what "zero tolerance policy" means. I suggest something like "In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" policy of prosecuting everyone who enters the country illegally. This overturned previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families with children, and resulted in the jailing of parents and their separation from their children. By the sixth week..." --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I concur with your suggested changes.- MrX 🖋 18:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't concur because it is a political argument and I'm not seeing any substantive facts in any of the sources that substantiate the denials or assertions beyond respective political biases, advocacies and the rule of law, and all of the evidence I've seen to date favors the rule of law. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, sources are very clear about this, so let's use the sources. Your interpretation is not found in any of the reliable sources that I've seen.- MrX 🖋 20:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

No, they are not clear, they are spinning the truth, playing on human emotion and are not properly presenting the actual facts, which includes purposeful child endangerment by the parents who are being arrested for not entering legally via ports of entry and by adults who are trafficking children, etc. NOTNEWS, SOAPBOX, RECENTISM, ADVOCACY, and noncompliance with NPOV comes to mind when I read the proposed material. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

" they are spinning the truth" - thank you for your opinion. You're basically admitting that you are not going to follow the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Why should anyone pay any attention to your comments or !votes then? And seriously, at some point your continued use of this and other talk pages for your WP:NOTAFORUM opinions becomes disruptive andbreaches the discretionary sanctions in place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I've chosen instead to follow WP's PAGs on NPOV, NOTNEWS, ADVOCACY, SOAPBOX and to engage in sound editorial judgment regarding inclusion of such spin into this encyclopedia. Your allegation that I've breached DS is what needs study, along with every single response you've made to my comments. Now you have elevated your bludgeoning, false accusations and baiting to threatening me based on your own misinterpretations of policy. Please stop - it is a distraction and disruptive to this discussion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN:It's been two days since your "support" above. There's now wide coverage of Trump blaming this policy on his Administration being forced to follow some law. Do you now acknowledge that Trump has repeatedly blamed a law, or what he sometimes calls a loophole in the law, both created by the Democrats, for forcing him to divide and detain families? SPECIFICO talk 12:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I don't understand your question. I have already said that I support saying that he blames the Democrats. Sometimes he blames it on "a law", although I think the law he is referring to was not created by the Democrats and was actually signed by George W. Bush. (Sorry, don't have a link for that.) [35] (And of course he and Nielsen make it a mantra that they are "just following the law," which begs the question of why they only discovered that law a year and a half into his presidency). The rest of the time he blames it on the Democrats "obstruction" or their "refusal to come to the table", which is nonsense because it is the Republicans who deliberately exclude the Democrats from any discussions. It would be way beyond the scope of this article to try to detail all the different reasons he gives for blaming the Democrats; we should simply point out that he does. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You said "he blamed it on the law" was not supported by sources. But he has been documented and seen on TV many times saying the ("Democrat") law forced him to do this. Now he's reversed himself -- both on the policy and on his misrepresentation of the law. Both are significant, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The rest of the time he blames it on the Democrats "obstruction" or their "refusal to come to the table", which is nonsense because it is the Republicans who deliberately exclude the Democrats from any discussions. I can't wait to see who will oppose both legislative and executive fixes for this problem. wumbolo ^^^ 17:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support I liked the initial version better, but either is a good start. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally concur, but it's equivocating about what's "illegal" -- They are denying asylum under their own dubious legal theories. The "rule of law" bit is typical fake news and needs to be very scrupulously sourced to multiple notable experts. SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It's hard to find the truth about what's really going on. I have read that they have purposely slowed the traffic at the legal entry points to snail's pace so people can't get through. And I have read that some that cross into the U.S. and then turn themselves in asking for asylum are treated as no different than if they were apprehended against their will. Perhaps they try an illegal cross because they were refused at a legal crossing. We just don't know. Gandydancer (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In every edit on these Trump articles, we need to double check our own judgment and sources to be sure we are not parroting the White House Press Office, Trump, his surrogates, or his Congressional flacks. We always need to exercise judgment, but the deceptions are artful and complex and our best efforts are required to maintain NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously we need to make sure that the articles don't have anti-Trump fluff either, any bias here needs to be gone, which is hard, but I think that we can come to a bunch of different compromises here :). Jdcomix (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. This is 100% relevant for his Presidency article, but I don't think every news item should appear in this article. If in a short while this becomes really big and lasting then perhaps we can revisit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this could become bigger than the extensive international coverage it's already receiving and unprecedented public comments from four former first ladies. This has received lasting coverage for more than two months. - MrX 🖋 12:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for now as per Sir Joseph. Could be added in the future if it is more notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: the entire "Presidency" section of this article could be re-worked; I continue to hope that the dog-days of summer will eventually give enough of a respite from day-to-day news to discuss that. Right now I'm neutral on whether this material should be included in this article (it definitely should be included at Presidency of Donald Trump). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Support once the word-smithing below is done; there will be additions once Congress acts and/or the impact of Trump's EO are known. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - The article uses U.S., not US, and I've taken the liberty to make that change above. It's a nit, but it's best to get this right from the outset, especially for something that might end up in the consensus list. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - thought I already iVoted. My reasons are provided above (by approx 5 comments). The proposed text is factually inaccurate and omits important information. See factual reporting by Texas Tribune. They also covered the Obama border immigration crisis. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC) ^{Strike and underlined add-on dated 08:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)}
• Oppose for now as per Sir Joseph. At the moment, it's the shiny object du jour. Deserves a little time to sort out.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Extensive worldwide reliably sourced coverage in mainstream media. Wikipedia is not censored. The policy has been in place for months with mounting coverage so calling it a topic of the day is just bizarre. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Of course. Why the hell not? It's well sourced, extensive coverage, and obviously relevant to the section ... which is called "immigration", no? And I'm always amused by the logical pretzels some people will come up to justify their WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Query: - For those who are voting "not now", could you please give some indication of what amount of time; what amount of coverage in sources; or what further developments would change your minds? As of now, 2000 children have been separated from their parents, with some sources projecting 30,000 by the end of the summer. Is there some number of children locked in Walmarts that would qualify this for inclusion? Pinging: Sphilbrick — Sir Joseph — Emir of Wikipedia: - MrX 🖋 19:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have several issues, but speaking to the "not now" query, there's a meeting scheduled tomorrow to sort out a potential legislative solution. I don't hold out much hope, but I would think that waiting for that meeting, plus a couple days to see reactions would be prudent. I am curious how someone managed to estimate 30,000 by end of summer. If that's 100 days, that means averaging 280 per day. Per NBC News, they've averaged 46 per day.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Addendum - there's a news conference by the DHS head in progress as I type.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, here is a source for the 30,000.[36] - MrX 🖋 23:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The headline of that source includes the words Might Be, and it's Fortune Magazine.... The issue is an emotional one that is being misrepresented by baitclick media, not a factual one, (see Vox), which clearly does not allow children to be arrested along with their parents who have committed a crime by crossing the border illegally rather than going through legal ports of entry. It's the law, and it doesn't matter who likes it or doesn't like it - it's the law - and until that changes we should not be focused on the propaganda that is focused on human emotion. WP must not be used as SOAPBOX, and the proposed inclusion of material is noncompliant with NPOV - consensus cannot override it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You're all over the map. No one is suggestion that we include the 30,000 projection. If you don't think sources are reliable because they are propagandizing or use click bait headlines, you can try your luck at WP:RSN. "Noncompliant with NPOV" is nothing more than ipse dixit.- MrX 🖋 23:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This is obviously relevant. It's covered in every news source imaginable, and child concentration camps may very well end up as the thing that Trump is most remembered for. Bradv 20:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The issue has long-term encyclopedic value and will be one of the things this man and his presidency will be renowned for. The issue has been extensively covered by RS and has worldwide attention. 2,000 children have been separated and this policy has only been in place for six weeks. The issue has received massive coverage in the last few days due to the fantastic work of journalists and advocacy organizations who have been exposing the reality on the ground and piecing together what's happening. Experts have condemned the policy, warning that the thousands of children who have been separated from their parents are at risk of physical and mental harm, and have described the practice as "government-sanctioned child abuse". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Only time will tell whether this, like so many other issues in his presidency, warrants mention in a one-page biography. Until we have that historical perspective, most should be confined to the Presidency article. I take a very dim view of editor predictions of what he will be remembered for as president, which are little more than speculation.
  If he takes the U.S. to war, is impeached, or imposes martial law, no historical perspective is needed. In my view the appropriate bar for this article lies somewhere between issues like this and issues like those. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Mandruss, as you know I am somewhat sympathetic with your cautious approach to adding recent events. However this is not obviously fleeting. The article will change and less noteworthy content will be replaced with more noteworthy in light of future events and perspective. But we need to exercise our best judgment in the meantime if we are to have an article. We can discard trivia like his Jewish Grandchild or his Apprentice shoot location, or even being cast in The Simpsons. But this is very likely enduring material, even if we improve it over time we can start with our best effort today. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• No, it's very clear that on the topic of immigration (a key aspect in his candidacy and presidency) that this along with the ending of DACA and the Muslim ban are the three most notable actions of his presidency. If Trump goes on to reign as a dictator for twenty years, starts a nuclear war and captains the US to victory in the World Cup, we can update our priorities of encyclopedia-worthy content as more and more amazing things start to stack up in this man's life. As it stands, enacting a policy that causes irreparable harm to thousands of children obviously belongs in the article and obviously has long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Assuming for the sake of argument that you are undeniably correct that the policy causes irreparable harm to thousands of children, you apparently feel it's appropriate to use the encyclopedia to do good in the world, which is synonymous with a political platform. I don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• (1) It's the American Academy of Pediatrics's view that the policy causes "irreparable harm" to children. (2) There is nothing in my statement that relates to doing good in the world. It's strictly about what's notable, of long-term value and encyclopedic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, please see WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POINT. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support absolutely. It is an international scandal and a human right violation of the worst kind. It is international news on 7 continents, and for the kids, it will lead to long term psychological damage. scope_creep (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This is extensively sourced, with front page news coverage in the world's media. I suspect this may be a turning point of Trump's presidency. -- The Anome (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It NOT an issue, that may be different next week. It is a violation of highest international agreements that relate to the promotion of children and children's welfare. Here how some newspapers report it, from across the world.

• Reynolds, Emma (19 June 2018). "'Offensive to Americans': US furious with Trump over 'cruel' and 'immoral' policy". News Limited Copyright. news.com.au. Retrieved 18 June 2018.

• "US Border Patrol: Hundreds of children kept in cages at facility in Texas". 2018 ABC. ABC News. 18 June 2018. Retrieved 18 June 2018.

• Allen, Nick (18 June 2018). "The story behind heartbreaking photograph of little girl at the US-Mexico border". Telegraph Media Group Limited 2018. The Telegraph. Retrieved 18 June 2018.

• "Immigration : Trump réaffirme sa politique de séparation des enfants de leurs parents" (in French). France. Le Monde. 18 June 2018. Retrieved 18 June 2018.

• "Taken from parents, hundreds of children being kept in Border Patrol facility in Texas". Japan Times. 18 June 2018. Retrieved 18 June 2018.

scope_creep (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This has rec'd non-stop and around-the-world coverage. The last four first ladies have all come out against it, surely a first. I agree with Melanie that the language re Trump needs work and I'd like to see the medical community reaction added. Also, I do not think that the wording should include "illegal" because it is well-documented that people presenting for asylum are having their children taken away as well. Gandydancer (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. They are violating their own policy (which Kirstjen Nielsen reaffirmed) as well as international norms when they arrest people seeking asylum at legal ports of entry. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose For now, if it keeps getting wide coverage it could be suitable for his presidency article. If it keeps going after that it could be due for here as well. But as of right now it is just the latest headline so it would be good to keep WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS in mind until things settle a little. PackMecEng (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • These two policies dont apply here. It is far too serious an incident, and too widely covered internationally for these policies to apply. Its not some fly by night non issue, or regional issue, like Building the Wall. It is truly international and it will be brought up every time his name is mentioned, even after his death. He will be known as the guy who caged children, and always be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 00:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep:That is WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL, both are not helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Jdcomix (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What I'm seeing is propaganda spreading like wildfire by fake news: Snopes <--- pure propaganda, 2014 photo<--- fake news. If you want to label a president, start with Obama who was president in 2014 when that last photo originated because any attempts to do so will be as futile an exercise as trying to hang it on Trump. Atsme📞📧 01:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC) What in the world does this have to do with anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC) It has everything in the world to do with it. Atsme📞📧 03:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC) K.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This has many reliable references, wide coverage, and is not a single or isolated topic. Many people from different back grounds and political parties have spoken about this. Its on all major and minor news sites with varying areas covered. ContentEditman (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: as clearly animated by Trump's anti-immigration stance & other positions (birtherism, travel ban, etc). Not an isolated incident. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Atsme It is nothing to do with fake news, and it is nothing to do with Obama, and it is not propaganda. It may be a partisan political issue in the United States, but the rest of the world don't see it that way. They see kids in cages, in a policy officially sanctioned by Trump, although it was Sessions that implemented it, and most if not all the reports refer to Trump specifically, not the Whitehouse and not the president.

• Allen, Nick (19 June 2018). "Donald Trump defends 'zero-tolerance' immigration policy amid fury over separated children". Telegraph Media Group Limited. The Telegraph. Retrieved 19 June 2018. scope_creep (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The loophole in the US immigration law has been there for decades - Trump called on Congress to close the loopholes in the immigration law back on Jan 30th during his State of the Union speech, (see WaPo article.) What is happening on the border is far more complex than what the proposed addition in this RfC even begins to address - without clarity it becomes spin, and spin doesn’t belong in this article or WP. For the actual facts without the spin read the article in Texas Tribune - they also covered the story when Obama was president. ^{Atsme📞📧} 08:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Too early to decide – Check back in a couple months after the big fuss dies down, and see what remains. In the meantime, add it to the "presidency" and "immigration policy" articles. — JFG ^talk 07:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Two months is too early to decide?- MrX 🖋 11:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The policy may have changed two months ago, but the outrage only sparked over the last couple days. Still very much in the news cycle drama phase. We should at least wait until forthcoming bills are debated in Congress. — JFG ^talk 15:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The rest of us will decide. I don't know what it adds to say "Dunno" but anyway, as Bush said, decisions go to the deciders. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Bills in Congress? That is not what happened is it? We need to work within the real world framework that's been reported over the past weeks. This has nothing to do with Congress. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: the ink on this breaking news story is barely dry. This puts the "recent" in WP:RECENTISM. – Lionel^(talk) 09:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. This has been covered since April.[37][38][39][40] That's two months. We routinely and extensively update articles with information more recent than this, and far less important information like lunches with dictators and sports scores.- MrX 🖋 11:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"lunches with dictators"MONGO 11:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, MrX - the separation of children was covered in 2014 when it was happening under the Obama administration - which is when some of the photos of children in "cages" were actually taken but were wrongfully circulated as the fault of the Trump administration - no surprise there. It's the fault of Congress, but it appears they are finally getting off their duffs with intentions to close the loopholes that cause the family separation (so the facts should be presented accurately without the spin, and the fact is that under the Trump administration the loop holes may well be closed to prevent separation of families). In the interim, U.S. laws do not allow children to accompany their parents to jail, and they don't allow children to be exploited by child traffickers and so on. Those are the facts, not the emotion or the spin. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Your source doesn't support your WP:OR. We use sources, not your "facts".- MrX 🖋 20:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, you, your president, and his spokespeople are the only ones who maintain "it's the fault of Congress". Will you please stop dropping your talking points here? It is a discredit to you, and someone somewhere is marking this down to gather evidence for a topic ban. Your blah blah about US laws falls in the same category (illegal border crossing being misdemeanors in the realm of parking tickets, I'm told); kindly do not use Wikipedia to defend the government's application of policy and guidelines. But if you want to: "if it's the fault of Congress" you can't have Sessions take credit for it. It's one or the other. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

”My” president, Drmies? My credibility? Your veiled threat about my comments being collected by “someone” as evidence for a TB? Noted. ^{Atsme📞📧} 09:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Dude, you've made something like ten contributions to this RfC already. WP:BLUDGEON, much? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

And you violated DS with this revert and were spared AE by a gracious admin but now you're casting WP:Aspersions, so please respect the DS restrictions of Civility that apply to this TP....and I'm not a dude. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is getting extensive, front page, headline coverage in many countries outside the USA, with photos of kids in cages. It's putting the the whole country in the headlines. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - If anything, the language is very timid when referring to the lies being told by everyone in the administration. Trump said Democrats are to blame, Kelly called it a deterrent, Sessions said "it sends a message", Nielsen said it was not administration policy, Conway said it was administration policy (but that they weren't proud of it), Miller also said it was administration policy (but that they were proud of it, for fuck's sake), and Sarah Sanders waffled on about it being "biblical" or something I don't understand. I'm not a bible scholar, but I don't remember it recounting that time when Jesus ripped babies from the arms of their mothers and made them talk to each other by Skype. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per MONGO. We should include that some conservatives agree with him, rather that the current wording that look like everybody is against him. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think it would be fine to note that not a single Republican Senator expressed support for legislation that would the practice of family separation (though that may change) even though a lot of Republican congresspeople have expressed opposition to family separations in the abstract. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps one of our legal experts can define how the law works or you can read this article which explains some of the legal reasons the children are being separated. The children of American citizens who break the law do not go to jail with their parents - they are separated from them - and that is where some editors have lost the point on what's happening, and why they may be supporting the emotional spin. It's SOAPBOX, plain and simple. Sound editorial judgment is required. As I said above, we can't just include parts of what is happening because that makes it noncompliant with NPOV and other policies. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"you can read this article " - which you obviously didn't bother reading yourself seeing as how everything else you said in that comment is directly contradicted by the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oh ffs That sound clip of children crying hysterically for their moms and dads, while Border Patrol makes jokes is everywhere right now. The only place I haven't heard it yet is during the World Cup matches (maybe half time). Excluding this material is nothing but pure WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Btw, anyone know if that sound clip is copyrighted?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Jdcomix (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The argument for including this propaganda (just because it's in the news) has got to be among the weakest arguments and biggest time sinks I've seen yet. WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NPOV. Politicized spin focused on emotional reactions and crying children doesn't even come close to "dispassionate tone".... Take it to Wikinews, for Pete's sake, and focus on dispassionate, factual encyclopedic information for inclusion in our pedia. Atsme📞📧 16:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Let's see some sources for this being "propaganda". Otherwise please refrain from making unconstructive comments per WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support including this in some form - well-sourced (I don't like the "Exceptions" language, but fixes can be made in course of regular editing), length is appropriate (3 short sentences); this has been going on for weeks and has received extensive attention internationally, by scholars and experts, etc. I've seen no policy-based reason to exclude these. Neutrality^talk 16:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment would there be consensus to add only the first sentence In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" policy overturning previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families unlawfully crossing into the U.S. with children. to the existing section on immigration? I expect the rest of the content will change in the next month anyhow. @MONGO, Winkelvi, JFG, and Mandruss: as oppose voters who might support this as a compromise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That's only half the news, Power~enwiki. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    • "news". I think we can wait until Congress acts, rather than referring to demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups; as a practical measure we have to given that this RFC is likely to last a month (or be withdrawn once something happens). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Don't pretend you don't know that I know damn well what NOTNEWS says. That zero-tolerance stuff is noteworthy not just on its own merits, but also because practically the whole world, including his wife, are criticizing him for it. I'm sure you think that's unfair, but it is so widely covered that if you put one part in you have to put the other part in. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I don't think "everyone is criticizing him" is relevant in the long term; what they actually do (or don't do) to stop him is relevant. I'd rather include mention of things like Republican governors withdrawing the National Guard from the border in response [41]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• If the prez hadn't made the presidency such a personal thing I'd say put it in the presidency article--but given the whole "I alone can fix this" those boundaries are profoundly blurred. I wasn't much involved with the Obama article (I left that to my socks), but I don't remember those kinds of things being that complex during the previous presidency. So given that, and given the contradictory statements and outright lies, I suppose this has a place here. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, you made my day. Keeping your 🧦🧦🧦 neatly organized in your 🧦drawer is a good thing. 😂 Guess what? It appears Trump's actions are working - and this is one issue that I have been watching with interest - so when you get a chance, read the following: NBC, and article. The loophole in U.S. law that Trump has long been trying close (as evidenced by his State of the Union speech) - may finally happen. Once it incubates and Congress gets it passed, it will be interesting to see how WP editors will handle the positive information because it will have been under his direction and his wishes that this is finally happening, so the proposed material won't last long. Uhm...RECENTISM?? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

One can usually tell whether a story has legs or not. All four living former first ladies and the current have spoken. When’s the last time that happened? A bipartisan group of more than 70 former US attorneys are calling on Sessions to reverse the Trump administration's policy. Even if Cruz can somehow get 375 judges quickly put in place, this story is likely to haunt the DOJ for ages. I don’t think the Founding Fathers had this in mind when they discussed the mechanics of passing legislation. O3000 (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is top of the page, front page headline news in the objective media in my country, Australia, right now. This same media has taken to describing Trump using the words "very unorthodox", to explain the detail in which they cover some of his actions. I doubt if even his greatest supporters could rationally argue with "unorthodox". It's what they wanted, isn't it? Given that unorthodoxy and, as Drmies said, his overtly personal ownership of the Presidency, it's inevitable that images of crying kids, and kids in cages, in the USA, all at the behest of Donald Trump, become world news. This is big. It's about Trump. It demands to be in the article in considerable detail. HiLo48 (talk)!

• Support - This has been the subject of non-stop coverage in US media for 3 days now, it's obviously worthy of inclusion here. Jdcomix (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Because this article is a biography of his entire life, not just major events in his presidency. Belongs in the Presidency article.--v/r - TP 00:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• *Support Clearly important enough to be in his bio as well as an article only about his Presidency. Well sourced and written.Casprings (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Update: Our main article on this subject is now 4483 words long, has 115 source citations, references Trump 31 times, and was read by 12,462 readers yesterday. I wonder how many of those readers are puzzled by the lack of any mention, or even a wikilink, in the article text of the biography of the person who enacted the policy and who continues to falsely blame Democrats for the humanitarian crisis of his making.[42] - MrX 🖋 13:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yup. More evidence of how dysfunctional the situation is here where a vocal minority obstructs to prevent obviously relevant info from being added to the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM PackMecEng (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Discussing the dysfunctional nature of a Wikipedia article is not "forum behavior". Thanks though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: Oh please, you know this is the wrong place for that crap so cut the WP:NOTAFORUM out. You are welcome though. PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Seeing as how this RfC epitomizes the actual dysfunction, it's the perfect place for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC) And I appreciate your personal opinions on how wikipedia functions, but you don't know what you are talking about if you think this is the place to right wikipedia's wrongs. Like really really kind of in a funny way wrong, so wrong it makes me question your thought process, but that would get into forum territory again. PackMecEng (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC) K.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC) @PackMecEng: Perhaps, but it is a fair point nonetheless. MASSIVE coverage in reliable sources that specifically associate Trump with the matter personally, including near constant coverage on cable news, and yet the article is still silent on the issue. The system that broke Washington DC is now doing the same to Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC) @Scjessey: Fair enough, I do not disagree there are issues on Wikipedia. But an RFC on an article talk page is not the place to bitch and moan about it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in some form: I'm going to say yes, but, like MelanieN and Gandydancer, with some editing for clarity. As for policy, per Neutrality, I find no reason there to object, and I'm sure we can come to a wording with which we can all agree. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It's a defining event for both the man and the presidency. I propose an update based on today's Time article and a slight rewording (for the original references please see above)

In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" immigration policy, taking adults unlawfully crossing into the U.S. into custody for criminal prosecution, and separating children from parents. By mid-June, more than 2,300 children had been placed in shelters, including "tender age" shelters for babies and toddlers,[1] culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded.[2] Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law.[3][1][4][5]

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk • contribs) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support The impact of this is undeniable. Obviously we don't know what will happen next, but we know that this is already among the most significant events/policies of the administration. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Are you sure you want to go with most significant events/policies of this administration? Seems rather overkill for a flash in the pan situation like this. PackMecEng (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is a "flash in the pan". This is going to continue to be a huge deal as we wait to see how families are reunited, if they are reunited, and it will be a major issue in the midterm elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: That all sounds very WP:CRYSTAL. It's been less than a week since it broke in any significant way. PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

If we didn't make judgments like this on the WP:LASTING effects of recent events, we'd be woefully out of date. To suggest that Trump and immigration will factor into the 2018 elections hardly requires a crystal ball. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I mean that is why we have policies WP:BREAKING, WP:DELAY, and WP:RECENT. That is the problem with breaking news articles and additions, the significance and impact cannot be known within days of an event. Also good to remember the essay WP:NODEADLINE. PackMecEng (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand the purpose of those policies, but I think that the significance of this is clear. Some details may change due to the BREAKING nature of all of this, but we can address that as events develop. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I disagree but I see where you are coming from and appreciate you taking the time to explain your rationale. PackMecEng (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's always nice to have civil discourse with people we disagree with. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely! If we simply follow our guidelines, such as WP:RSBREAKING, and at the same time, lose the sense of urgency that drives clickbait traffic, we'd be miles ahead. WP is fortunate in that its future is not dependent on a sensationalized, breaking news business model like what has become the lifeline for so many media outlets that are forced to compete for market share in the same online markets. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:RSBREAKING says we shouldn't include this. It just says we should take care not to rush, take a day or two as events develop. This RfC has been open three days. The family separations are well documented in reliable sources, as has been the public sentiment and Trump administration reactions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I'm not saying to not include it; however, it does need to be worded correctly. I question the part that states in WikiVoice, "Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law." His response was not a false assertion - they were following the law. See this Vox article which explains Flores v. Reno. According to the DOJ's interpretation of the law, children cannot be held with their parents in detention for illegal entry, which is why they sent the children to DHHS as “unaccompanied alien children.” NBC stated that there is still "confusion as to what the Trump administration’s detention policy will look like going forward." The NYTimes reported that Trump's EO could face a legal battle because a federal judge could deny them authority to hold families in custody more than 20 days (1997 court order and Flores v. Lynch (2016) court of appeals) which supports Trump's statement that they were following the law...but now with the EO, maybe not. Congress, in a bipartisan effort, is responsible for making the laws, and fixing that immigration law. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It is rather ridiculous to jam that end bit in. Almost like we are purposely trying to misrepresent what happened with no explanation. PackMecEng (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That sentence needs to be corrected as previously pointed out. We can use these sources:

"Trump has falsely blamed the separations on a law he said was written by Democrats. But the separations instead largely stem from a "zero-tolerance" policy announced with fanfare last month by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. "
— Chicago Tribune

"President Trump on Saturday repeated his false assertion that Democrats were responsible for his administration’s policy of separating migrant families apprehended at the border, sticking to a weekslong refusal to publicly accept responsibility for a widely condemned practice that has become a symbol of his crackdown on illegal immigration."
— The New York Times

"President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he would sign an executive order to pull back on his administration’s highly controversial policy of separating undocumented immigrant children from their parents.cIt was a jarring reversal for the president who has been falsely stating for days that only Congress could fix the problem."
— [43]

It turns out that Trump made several false claims about this matter. More here: [44] - MrX 🖋 01:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support: As noted above, this has been widely publicized for several weeks now. pbp 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in some form I was initially tempted to say that the content belonged on the 'Presidency' article but was persuaded by two arguments to include a succinct version here. Firstly the degree to which immigration issues have been a 'personal issue' with D Trump, secondly, a purely pragmatic - rather than policy - argument, namely that given the level of international coverage, it's borderline bizarre to not mention briefly here. Content should be kept as concise as possible though and should be tidied somewhat broadly as suggested by MelanieN. Pincrete (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as I don't believe we did this for the Barack Obama article. This belongs in the Presidency of Donald Trump article. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• @GoodDay: What the hell does this have to do with the Barack Obama article? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, the Obama administration began those border detention centers & also, that Democrats have been in favor strict immigration policies, since as far back at the Clinton administration. Separating children from parents, didn't begin under the Trump administration. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: You are evidently misinformed, because everything you just said is wrong. The Obama administration, as with previous administrations, detained unaccompanied children at detention centers, but it was the Trump administration the first began forcibly separating families. And while it is true that Democrats have supported stricter immigration policies, that is only because Democrats have routinely cooperated with Republicans on legislation they don't like as part of regular "horse trading". Since the election of Barack Obama and the unprecedented levels of "no" and "hell no!" BS from Republicans (Merrick Garland, anybody?) the Democrats have been understandably less eager to get on board with Republican proposals. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in a political debate, here. My position hasn't changed on the aforementioned proposal. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The Immigration section not mentioning it is a glaring omission, and it feels like censorship. This is significant news, and we have a standalone article on the policy. The proposed text, though, is a little long. It only needs a few words, such as Trump's April 2018 "zero tolerance" policy in which children were separated from adults when crossing into the US, was suspended following widespread criticism. SilkTork (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Suppport At this point, given the level, breadth, and sustained nature of the coverage, it's reasonable to call it a defining event in his presidency and significantly more important than many things we currently mention in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - think something like this previously failed, largely as being a Presidency if anywhere. Think it still not a fit here for that reason. Side note that’s a bad title for the article/topic, unless someone wants to suggest the subject is well described without the word “children”? Also, frankly I think it would run amok here as it has elsewhere. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  Markbassett, is it possible you posted this in the wrong section? I'm not aware that this has been proposed before the discussion immediately preceding this RfC. Also, are you able to cite a policy-based reason for opposing this material?- MrX 🖋 11:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:MrX there was a lot of thumbs scrolling to get here, but this is in the right place to put it. The main policies for the item belonging to Presidency article rather than here would be OFFTOPIC and UNDUE. I could also see ONUS and the PRESERVE playing in from the issues with V, NPOV, and NOR. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – Given recent developments, the proposed text is already obsolete. No prejudice against inserting a summary of the affair once the situation is stabilized. — JFG ^talk 09:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  The text is not obsolete, it just needs to be expanded to include that Trump caved under immense public pressure and that protest across the country have shut down or disrupted ICE facilities. There is no policy on Wikipedia that requires that a situation be stable before we write about it. If there were, a large portion of this article wouldn't exist and the presidency article would be a stub.- MrX 🖋 11:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

What wording to use

Several wordings have been proposed. I suggest we discuss the various proposed wordings here separately, so that if the decision is to include (too early to say; we should let it run for a week and get a neutral close), we don’t have to start a whole new discussion about what to say.

Version A: In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" policy overturning previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families unlawfully crossing into the U.S. with children. By the sixth week, nearly 2000 children had been separated from their parents, culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded. Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law.

Sources

Version B: In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" policy of prosecuting everyone who enters the county illegally. This overturned previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families with children, and resulted in the jailing of parents and their separation from their children. By the sixth week, nearly 2000 children had been separated from their parents, culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded. Trump falsely blamed the separations on the Democrats.}}

Sources

Version C: In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" immigration policy, taking adults unlawfully crossing into the U.S. into custody for criminal prosecution, and separating children from parents. By mid-June, more than 2,300 children had been placed in shelters, including "tender age" shelters for babies and toddlers, culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded. Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law.

Sources

Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Version A: it's succinct and covers all the main issues and the purpose on this page is to briefly cover the topic - linking to the main article. The only quibble (with all 3 versions), is the use of 'falsely'. I don't doubt that a wealth of sources have in various ways pointed out the 'inexactitude' of the Trump claims - I just wonder whether it's worth it to characterise the nature of this perverse piece of deflection. We either simply report the Trump 'defence', or we say who and why and how the 'defence' has been criticised as 'false'. I would go for straight 'report', since the text already states that the practice of prev. admins was being overturned. Pincrete (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Version B reads the best to me, particularly the This overturned previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families with children language. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. It's in dispute in RS that these are all illegal border crossings. To go for the "unlawful" entry lingo is to uncritically accept the claims made by a group of people who have lied ceaselessly on different aspects of this policy. I also think all options should contain the false claim that he was following the law AND the false claim that Democrats are at fault. As the options are laid out, we can only include one of the false claims. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You’re right. "Unlawful" or "illegal" doesn’t apply to asylum seekers.

Under the applicable regulations, noncitizens apprehended in the U.S. by immigration authorities still have the constitutional right to a removal hearing that complies with the due process clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. An immigration court at the removal hearing is tasked with evaluating whether noncitizens should be allowed to remain in America.
But the immigration courts are backlogged, and so a considerable amount of time — months and sometimes years — can elapse before removal hearings occur. In the past, noncitizens have been eligible for bond during this period, provided he or she does not pose a flight risk or danger to public safety. President Trump referred to this practice, which the law requires, disparagingly as "catch and release." However, Trump signed a memo in April ending the so-called “catch and release” of immigrants into the community. Not surprisingly, the number of noncitizens requesting a bond hearing in immigration court surged almost 40 percent during the first year of Trump’s administration, according to Reuters, as more and more noncitizens were denied bond by Immigration and Customes Enforcement officers.

(Johnson) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd like to propose a version D:

Version D: In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" immigration policy that took adults unlawfully crossing into the U.S. into custody for criminal prosecution and forcibly separated children from parents, eliminating the policy of previous administrations that made exceptions for families with children. By mid-June, more than 2,300 children had been placed in shelters, including "tender age" shelters for babies and toddlers, culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded. Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law.

Sources

-- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Any of these are more or less fine, except for the sentence "Trump falsely blamed the separations on the Democrats." I don't think we should get too hung up on the specific wording at this point, because the underlying situation is evolving. For example, there are now claims that children have been forcibly given psychoactive drugs. Also, Trump has now capitulated on enforcement. What is important is that the key points be covered in the article, and that we allow for small copyedits to improve the wording or add to material as warranted.- MrX 🖋 22:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I generally favor version D as a starting point, long as we don't get locked into that wording.18:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

What would you all think about a Version E, a single sentence as suggested by User:SilkTork above?

Version E Trump's April 2018 "zero tolerance" policy led to children being separated from adults when crossing the southern border; in June he ordered an end to the family separation following widespread criticism.

Sources

Could something like that possibly be added now, while we discuss whether to include more detailed information? What do you all think about the one-sentence approach? --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me we cannot now add this anodyne wording, because it will be cited as "consensus version" a month from now when complete, verified NPOV language is still being debated here. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO. The two key aspects of this whole outrage is that (a) children were forcibly separated from parents, and (b) Trump lied through his back teeth about why it was happening. Any inclusion that fails to mention either of these is a total waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with SPECIFICO and would be opposed to using such a short version because it might create the impression that we get our information by Pony Express.- MrX 🖋 18:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Children were separated from adults but we're no longer doing that so no harm, no foul? I was going for disingenuous but anodyne works for me, too. I oppose the one-sentence temporary approach as unacceptable. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, and whichever one we use, we can now add "On June 20, 2018, amid enormous political pressure to roll back his policy, Trump signed an executive order to end family separations at the the U.S. border. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources

MelanieN, can we please let this incubate a bit more, at least until after we know what the EO reads? NBC states: Trump said the order "will solve that problem" of children being separated from their parents, but that it wouldn't end his administration's "zero tolerance" policy of charging everyone who attempts to cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. Also, the House is expected to vote on two immigration bills today (if they haven't already). ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

We won't be adding anything until the RfC above is closed. In the meantime there will definitely be a need to tweak the wording. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thx MelanieN, because that gives us some time to work on the above choices, and decide how best to present it, and where a clear summary will fit best. Please read this Vox article as it explains the dilemma, and so does this NBC analysis/commentary by Kevin R. Johnson, dean and Mabie-Apallas professor at UC Davis. I think both reflect the facts well without the passion of earlier breaking news reports. I challenge the wording that Trump "falsely asserted", and oppose inclusion of "falsely blamed" the Democrats which is a partisan POV (and even if consensus says include it, contentious statements require in-text attribution and should not be stated in WikiVoice. Regarding "Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law" - I don't see how that can possibly be accurate because they actually did comply with the law, specifically the landmark court decision known as the 1997 Flores agreement. RS support my position; however, it now appears that Trump's newly signed EO may not be compliant, unless modifications are made to eliminate the 20 day detention limit for children. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I agree with you that "falsely claimed he was following the law" is debatable. But "falsely blamed the Democrats" is undeniable. See my comment below where I provide five additional sources explicitly saying that. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: the original Flores settlement concerned unaccompanied minors. It was expanded to accompanied minors by the 9th circuit court of appeals in 2016. wumbolo ^^^ 09:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Wumbolo, the sources keep referring to it as the Flores settlement and I couldn't remember the style of the appeal - (2016) Flores v Lynch - wherein the panel held that "...the district court erred in interpreting the Settlement to provide release rights to accompanying adults. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the government’s motion to amend the Settlement." Not much choice there but to comply which is why Congress needs to change the law - it is the only branch of government with the enumerated power to do so, not the president. He can issue an EO but it's temporary, and subject to litigation that can make it unenforceable. That's why the Obama admin had problems when they acted in noncompliance with the law, and why this mess dates back to prior administrations. We cannot/should not include cherrypicked material to spin the facts based on a single POV. As to your question above regarding which party will shoot down the immigration bills that will fix the mess - see this report. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither RS you presented in your edit at 02:14, 22 June 2018, supports your position. Also, you’re confusing case law with statutory law, the Refugee Act of 1980. Please read your NBC source past paragraph 4 where you found (and subsequently misrepresented) this sentence: Known generally as the Flores settlement, this landmark decision limits the detention of migrant children. The source also mentions Flores v. Lynch (2016) and explains past and present administrations’ handling of asylum/immigration quite well. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to explain rather well the how and why it happened. Which parts do you have issues understanding? PackMecEng (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

STC, - your blanket criticisms are what's unsupported. Either strike or and please provide diffs, not time/date. Why do you think the sources I referenced do not support my position? What exactly do you consider to be my position? The law applies to the court's decision in the 1997 Flores agreement and was upheld for the most part in the 2016 appeal. In fact, the DOJ on Thursday asked the district court to modify the portion of the '97 court settlement that limits the detention of children to 20 days. Of course, the court can refuse. This issue has become politicized. The Atlantic did a good job explaining what happened to the Democratic party between Obama's election and today which can be summed up in a single quote, "A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge." The article also points out that "Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers." I imagine it is highly unlikely that Democrats are going to support any immigration reform that doesn't allow for open borders and an easy path to citizenship, and there are some Republicans who feel the same way. Based on what we've seen of Trump's actions so far, he's neither Republican nor Democrat - he's a populist - and this happens to be his bio which should reflect that about him per RS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

highly unlikely that Democrats are going to support any immigration reform that doesn't allow for open borders Come on, Atsme, that is Trump propaganda. No Democrat calls for "open borders". Many of them call for more generous immigration laws, but "open borders" is just a GOP smear. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't think of one single Dem that has asked for "open borders", and you're claiming Dems as a group will insist on it. O3000 (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Democrats as a group going for open boarders is not exactly a new concept. GOP smear is just the flavor of the day. [45] [46][47][48][49]. PackMecEng (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The first article is a writer speaking his own opinion and states that liberals are NOT for open borders. The second is a professor of geography speaking his own opinion about what Dems SHOULD be for. I believe the third article is a Socialist talking about a Socialist. The next says Reps are accusing Dems of being for open borders, but falsely. The last article appears to have been written by a founder of an anti-immigrations group. O3000 (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Objective. I was about to post a similar analysis of Pack's five sources: None of them cite any actual Democrat calling for open borders or anything similar. And if you Google "Democrat" "open borders" [50] you find lots of hits - all of them quoting people like Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and Tom Cotton. This is a right-wing myth. It is not something any Democrat proposes or favors. --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A good bit to do with google and Trump statements is set the date to before Trump said it and see what was being said then. The first one, it is giving reasons they should be for it from a progressive viewpoint. Second is covered by the same principle. Third is a socialist whole aligns with democrats yes, so what? On four says not exactly true and gives nuances on democrat base wanting pretty much the same thing. While written by an anti-immigration person still gives perspective on what has been going on. They are valid articles giving viewpoints of the base. I could provide more if you like but the point stands that it is not some wacko fringe claim, but even if it is a vocal minority of democrats it is something that has been advocated for. PackMecEng (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The claim was: I imagine it is highly unlikely that Democrats are going to support any immigration reform that doesn't allow for open borders Has a single member of Congress called for such? In fact, the opposite is true. It is highly unlikely that a single Dem would support open borders. This is a fringe claim. O3000 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

O3000 and MelanieN have adequately impeached the five-card draw there but I must say #5 can't be called anything other than an insistent anti-immigration fringe ideologue. She's not getting you to the finish line on this one. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The argument has been about the base and the movement, not dems voting in office. Which is why I and the articles mostly talk about what the base is calling for. No need to move the goal posts. Also I do not buy that we cannot use partisan sources to support a statement, we do that all the time. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

First, the claim wasn’t about the base. It was about Congress.. Secondly, the articles didn’t say what you claimed, which is clearly fringe. Despite what the President claims, no one is in favor of letting in ISIS. But, now we’re just boring people; so I'll stop. O3000 (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie - you didn't include my whole statement: ....some Republicans feel the same way. Corporate America comes in all flavors. I just wish we'd stick to the dry facts - dispassionate tone - because for every "he/she blamed the Democrats" there is a "he/she blamed the Republicans", and it's just not very encyclopedic for us to get involved in the blame game. It serves -0- purpose beyond raising the cackles of the opposition. In response to the open borders challenge...well, I think some on the right see it as the Democrats wanting open borders because they're not enforcing immigration laws, which explains how it became a Repub talking point, but then there was HRC's leaked email: Chicago Tribune, ABC News, and NBC which quotes: "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the Hemisphere." Of course, she back-peddled when the backlash hit, but c'mon - it's no different from when HW spoke the words "new world order", or when Trump misstates something and it goes viral, except for the fact that his misstatements are referred to as lies and are not only included in articles, they're expounded upon - - it's unencyclopedic but neither here nor there at this point. Such material didn't stick in the articles of past presidents and I seriously doubt it's going to stick here because it lacks long-term encyclopedic value. Look at how much trivia MrX recently removed, and I'm willing to wager that more will follow. I just think we should exercise a bit more discretion when first deciding so we don't have to do it after the fact. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

You’re bringing up a sarcastically written article about a stolen e-mail talking about a dream of an idyllic future. The claim that Dems in Congress (or any Reps for that matter) will block immigration legislation unless it includes open borders is evidence-free. O3000 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

O3000, I think we can agree that most articles that oppose one's POV may well be deemed "sarcastically written". As for the claim about Dems blocking legislation based on an open border agenda, well, I haven't proposed inclusion, but when determining what to include based on all significant views, it's hard to overlook Senator Durbin & Mayor Emanuel going on a 24 hr hunger strike back in 2014 to pressure Congress for immigration reform. Emanuel's position has been consistent over the years in that "...law enforcement should not be focused on those who enter the country illegally, but on those who commit violent crimes while here." per NBC5. If immigration laws are neither enforced nor the focus, that isn't any different from having open borders - it's simply a devious way of getting it done. As for the blame game, The Hill reported that Repubs blame Dems for blocking immigration reform, and of course the Dems blame Repubs - so it's back and forth. I suggested leaving it out all together, and to focus only on the facts; i.e., the law & immigration policy/reform and what the gvt. is doing to fix the problems. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we can agree that most articles that oppose one's POV may well be deemed "sarcastically written" No, I most certainly do not agree with that. And, immigration reform and open borders are entirely different concepts. O3000 (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Not enforcing immigration law and not passing immigration reform accomplishes the same thing...nothing, which is the same thing open borders accomplish. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

So, you are saying that Dems in Congress will not allow any immigration legislation to pass unless it states that there will be zero enforcement of immigration laws. Fine, you win, Democrats would allow ISIS to roll over the border en masse. O3000 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought time and date was clear enough (how many edits at the exact time and date can one editor reasonably make?). Apparently I was wrong, so here’s the diff. I’ won’t engage in an argument about whose interpretation of the sources is correct; I’ve said what I have to say, and other editors can read the sources and make up their own minds. An off-topic remark, since you brought up the H-1B visa program for highly skilled workers: The Trump administration hasn’t expanded that or the H-2A program for seasonal farm workers, but it raised the cap on H-2B visas for guest workers from 66,000 to 81,000 for fiscal year 2017. (Three days later, Trump's properties asked for permission to hire 76 workers through the program.) Source: Vox.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme because for every "he/she blamed the Democrats" there is a "he/she blamed the Republicans", and it's just not very encyclopedic for us to get involved in the blame game OK, good. We are getting back to the actual wording of this material. I have provided half a dozen Reliable Sources saying that Trump falsely blamed the Democrats for this situation. Please show me the reliable sources saying that Trump blamed the Republicans. Bottom line, we are not the ones playing the blame game; Trump is. That was an important aspect of the coverage and I think we should include it, per WP:WEIGHT. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, MelanieN, I was hoping to not make it about Dem vs Rep or Trump vs Dem, etc. or trying to determine what factual information actually supports "falsely" which is primarily based on partisan opinion. I'd like to see us move away from that and focus more on longterm, matter-of-fact encyclopedic content. Repubs have their own issues per this CNN article (which I thought was well-written less the clickbait headline). It doesn't actually point a partisan finger; rather it covers the bills that were proposed and the various views within a single party - good stuff. There are RS that cover the Dem's perspective equally as well so we really are better off to let the prose speak for itself regarding POV issues. All we have to do is simply state the facts, not blatant partisan opinions that resembles mudslinging like what we see during a campaign. Our readers will take away whatever it is they need to take away if we simply present the facts, and not allow our pedia to fall victim to the politics. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, this discussion is not about bills or immigration reform. Congress has been unable to do anything about that for decades (although there was a bill that passed the Senate and WOULD have passed the House if Boehner had allowed it to come up for a vote [51]). No doubt both sides blame the other, but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about the separation of families at the border. Trump has said, repeatedly, that it's the Democrats' fault. The fact that he says it is massively reported. The statement that he has tried to put the blame on the Democrats is not partisan opinion; it is based on Trump's own statements and tweets. The fact that it is NOT actually the Democrats' fault is also massively supported by multiple neutral reliable sources. That's why I think that sentence should be in the article. That should be all we are talking about here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, Melanie, Melanie...pah-lease...let's get on the same page...Vox "The comparison to Obama’s policies is especially relevant now that the Trump administration is seeking to keep families in immigration detention for weeks or months. The reason that Trump can’t do that under a current judicial order is that the courts stepped in to stop Obama from doing it." It speaks for me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Still cherry-picking quotes from the sources contradicting your POV, I see. Here's another quote from your source: Reversion to the Obama-era norm isn’t what the Trump administration wanted, though. The president took a ton of pride in the low number of border crossings in the early months of his term — he kept bragging about it even as apprehensions crept back up in fall of 2017. When he started realizing that people were still coming in to seek asylum, he got upset that the US couldn’t just shut down the border — and pushed into action a policy agenda that would crack down on anyone trying to come to the US without papers, especially if they crossed into the country illegally. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Version D reads the best for me, although was the policy eliminated? Wasn't it previous administrations failing to act on the legislation, as opposed to Trump, who did. scope_creep (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

+ Plus the latter half of A with the main players included. scope_creep (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Version D is perfect, with perhaps some copyediting and elaborating on the final sentence (this is much more significant than a typical Trump falsehood). Update with further executive developments. I generally support covering this as it is a major event; and support per MelanieN. wumbolo ^^^ 17:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I would suggest dropping the falsely asserted following the law part since it is a little misleading. It was within the law the charge and hold the parents and it is also the law that after a parent is charged the child cannot stay with them. But the law was not expressly separate parents from children, that was an effect of charging the parents. PackMecEng (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I am OK with any of the proposals except for the last sentence. Yes, he claimed he was following the law; it can be argued about whether that claim was true or false. But he blamed Democrats every time he opened his mouth. [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] Even when he claims he is “just following the law,” he falsely claims it is a Democrat law. So I much prefer "falsely blamed the Democrats" over "falsely claimed he was just following the law." --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

What credible source do we have that Trump's "just following the law" claims were true? WRT "credible" -- Do these also tell us that his reversal violated the law? SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd be okay with changing "Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law" to "Trump told a series of lies about the reason behind his policy change, and blamed everybody but himself, then concocted a ludicrous publicity stunt of him signing a totally unnecessary executive order before dispatching his wife to Texas wearing a jacket that said she gave no fucks." -- Scjessey (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean and it might be more accurate, but should be in a more encyclopedic tone. PackMecEng (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Like - MrX 🖋 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Version D but with major changes - for reasons already discussed above. First, our article on the subject is under Trump administration family separation policy not "zero tolerance policy" and wording should be consistent. Second, as Snoogans^2 says above, the policy doesn't apply to just "illegal" but people who have legitimately tried to apply for asylum have also been affected. I also think the "of previous administration" should be removed. Until April 6th, it was his administration's policy too. Just say "previous policy". Last sentence is fine and needs to be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Version E is the least incendiary and accurately reflects reality.MONGO 18:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• @MONGO: It's certainly the least incendiary, but that's because it contains absolutely NONE of the noteworthy stuff, and thus doesn't actually reflect any kind of reality at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent behavior at this article

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 haven’t been online much the past few days. But it looks like things got way out of control on the main article here yesterday, where the passions on this talk page spilled over onto the main page. It started when MrX decided to go ahead and add the “family separation” material to the article even though it was still being discussed on the talk page. Then there were a couple of reversions, to the point where an administrator had to step in to prevent an edit war. And then people started adding and reverting family separation links and NPOV tags. This kind of public arguing is not appropriate for any Wikipedia article but especially one as heavily viewed as this one. Let’s all take a step back and recommit to the Wikipedia principles that need to guide us here:

• Consensus is our rule here. No matter how strongly you feel about something, it requires consensus to go in the article. In highly disputed or closely divided discussions like family separation, no one can just arbitrarily decide that consensus agrees with them and take action on that belief. If they do, the inevitable result will be what happened yesterday.
• Don’t tag the whole article as NPOV just because you feel that some one item should, or should not, be included. That’s just continuing the edit war under another guise.
• Respect other editors’ viewpoints even if you disagree with them, and stay civil.
• Here on the talk page, I notice the passions about one topic are spilling over into other topics - a type of WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, “If we aren’t going to have X in the lede then we shouldn’t have Y either.” There’s no rule against that kind of argument but it doesn’t really address the issue under discussion.

This is one of our most highly viewed articles. Some of us have strong feelings about the subject, but we all want it to be good encyclopedic material informative to our readers. Let’s please keep our behavior within bounds and keep our disagreements limited to the talk page, not the main page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN. One thing that's troubled many of us recently is the knee-jerk blanket reverts of new material, often after discussion on talk and reasonable expectation that it was uncontroversial. This tactic causes the DS to work in unintended ways and to give predatory reverters veto power over the large number of collaborators here. I hope I worded that diplomatically enough for this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, MelanieN, thank you once again for portraying me as the bad guy who started the fracas, while omitting that I started the discussion and that the discussion was leaning toward inclusion before I made a WP:BOLD edit in accord with Wikipedia's foundational principles.- MrX 🖋 18:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX, it's probably wise to not exercise BOLD with articles that under DS restrictions. SPECIFICO - can you provide diffs for the knee jerk reverts to which you are referring? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

probably wise to not exercise BOLD - Bears a bit of clarification. BOLD itself is fine. TP consensus is not required unless the BOLD is disputed/challenged. This kind of BOLD is not fine. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless you're suggesting that my edit was reckless, your opinion is not grounded in policy.- MrX 🖋 19:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX, at an article under the remedies we need to wait until there is consensus, not until (we perceive that) a discussion is "leaning". If you get to do it, everybody else gets to do it, too, and you will often strongly disagree with their perception and judgment. At that point, we're off and running and the added order that the remedies seek to achieve pretty much breaks down. Things move slower under the remedies, and that's not a bad thing. I walked away from a recent discussion because of your editing during a 6-hour-old discussion in which there was anything but a consensus. Unlike SPECIFICO I'll refrain from speaking for "many of us" without evidence, but I find that extremely frustrating. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:BOLD did not go out of fashion when DS came into play. DS was a direct result of a handful of editors gaming the system, edit warring, forum shopping, attacking other editors, stonewalling, and filibustering—many behaviors that persist in spite of the threat of sanctions. I support anyone, at anytime, at any article who makes a constructive WP:BOLD edit in good faith. I don't know what you're referring to when you say you "walked away", but it sounds like you have an issue with bold editing or perhaps the world is moving too fast for you.- MrX 🖋 19:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As I indicated above, I have no problem with an initial BOLD edit to content not currently under discussion. It would be absurd to require prior TP consensus for everything. That is not what we're discussing here. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: I haven't reviewed the edit war yet and this thread is my first introduction to whatever happened yesterday. I didn't read MelanieN's initial post as portraying you as "the bad guy". ~Awilley (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not the place for accusations and squabbles over DS violations. Take it to their talk page, or an uninvolved admin, or to AE. Keeping in mind that frivolous or trivial complaints at the AE board can backfire. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I also wanted to add that Volunteer Marek violated DS a couple hours ago too. I posted a warning on his talk page, and then he removed my warning (which he is allowed to do) with the edit summary "you're the one who broke DS by violating 1RR. I did not violate DS" and then he posted a warning on my user talk page with the comment "The article is under 1RR protection. You made two reverts. Here's your chance to self revert. And no, I did not violate DS". He did violate DS: he added a {{NPOV}} tag had already been added to the article here. I contested the addition of the tag, and then he added it again. So I gave him a last warning. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC) WP:AE is thataway.→→→ By the way, you violated 1RR so it's a wash. - MrX 🖋 19:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC) @MrX: Oh yeah? Where? I was enforcing DS with my second revert. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC) That's not how it works. You not the enforcer of DS. If you don't believe me, try your luck at AE. Also, you don't have to ping me when I'm obviously actively engaged in the discussion.- MrX 🖋 19:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Once again? So you have made a habit of this kind of thing, have you, and gotten called out on it before? (Sorry, I don't keep scoresheets.) I disagree with your application of BOLD to items that are under still-unresolved discussion. The suggested pattern is bold-revert-discuss. If the discussion is already going on and is unresolved (even if you perceive it as "leaning" your way), boldly implementing one side of the discussion is only going to lead to problems, as it did this time. --MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems you have made a habit of calling me out for it. If you folks want to change Wikipedia's policies, you're welcome to make a proposal at the appropriate venue. Bold editing is still a core principle. You're also welcome to inquire at WP:ARCA if you think that WP:ARBAPDS intended to change that. - MrX 🖋 19:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The admin who reverted you said he was taking an “AE action to enforce consensus required.” That sounds like he did not agree with your bold edit. Shall we ping him here to ask for his interpretation of how the WP:BOLD guideline (which btw is a guideline, not a "core principle") applies to issues under discussion? --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Now you're just making things up. An admin reverted Bastun, not me. MONGO reverted me. There is no current editing restriction on bold editing and I would be aghast if there were.- MrX 🖋 21:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The edit he reverted was the material you had inserted (after MONGO removed it and Bastun reinstated it). I guess we do need to ask User:NeilN what the rules are about bold editing on subjects which are under current discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Remedies bullet 1 excerpt: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged." I haven't conducted an exhaustive search but I haven't found an edit challenged by reversion that is similar to MrX's edit. "Similar" would be reasonably interpreted as anything intersecting or overlapping MrX's edit. If such an edit exists, this is open-and-shut, so it would be very helpful if someone more familiar would locate the edit and link it here. If one does not exist, MrX did not violate the letter, and we're left with strong disagreement as to whether he violated the spirit and intent (Pillar 5 excerpt: "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording"). In the latter case I think a trip to ARCA is needed; else we'll never see the end of this. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Right. I challenged MrX's edit by reversion and clearly stated to start an Rfc which he did.--MONGO 21:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Diffs please. For clarity, we need the initial BOLD, the challenge, and the vio. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It was an edit by MrX here and I challenged it here. I do not know anything about a vio in regards to this matter.--MONGO 21:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Its all in the history since yesterday. Bastun then reverted me and Signedzzz added into that but then NeilN came and restored it to my challenge version.--MONGO 21:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Right, no vio of the letter of the remedies, so ARCA it is. NeilN's opinion might put an end to this immediate dispute, but I don't think it would be very effective to link to that diff for future disputes of this type. The remedies could be clarified on this point with just a few additional words. It's unfortunate that process has to be codified to such a degree, but it beats the alternative. There is too much work to be done to continue spending half of our time arguing about process. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping MrX from being bold that I am aware of. One might think that waiting for a clear consensus would be best but he is not policy bound to do so.--MONGO 22:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand that. The question at hand is whether it would benefit the article if he were ArbCom bound to do so. And not just him by any means, but everybody else too; I am firmly focused on the larger picture, not one editor's behavior in one incident. I believe it would, and MelanieN believes it would.
And BTW, the word "clear" has not been used here; any consensus would be enough. One editor's perception of the way a discussion is "leaning" is not a consensus of any kind. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Bear in mind there was no open Rfc on the edits he added. That was started after I challenged his edit. Traditionally an Rfc is hopefully closed by an uninvolved admin but that wouldn't apply in this case anyway.--MONGO 22:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Also BTW, the principle of "don't edit while under discussion" is hardly limited to this article, or to articles under ArbCom remedies. I see it all the time at ordinary articles. Apparently a large number of experienced editors feel that it serves to help keep things orderly and avoid edit warring. Consensus first, then edit. Others feel that it's useful to discuss and edit concurrently, but I fail to see the point when the end result is the same. There is no hurry to get changes into an article, especially changes that may be further modified in a matter of hours. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with MelanieN's wise words at the beginning of this thread, and recommend that all editors active on this article to take her advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for you recommendation, but let's dig a bit deeper. MelanieN has strongly implied that my bold edit caused a two day cascade of bad behavior. That doesn't bear scrutiny. Then she doubled down by falsely claiming that I was reverted as an AE action. Facts matter. If there is a new editing restriction that prohibits bold edits, then it needs to be written where everyone can see it. For my part, I would challenge such a restriction at ARCA. I'm pretty sure I could show numerous occasions where editors have made similar bold edits in this article. Some were reverted; some were retained; no one got hurt. If you admins want to help, how about dealing with the sock puppets, gaming, and CIR issues rife in this article? You see, the problem isn't bold editing. It's all of the other bad faith editing and disruption that interferes with collaborative dispute resolution. NeilN has been on point, and has done an exemplary job, but I'm sure he could use some help.- MrX 🖋 22:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I really shouldn't be the only admin who dictates process here but I doubt Arbcom is going to draft up wording around what BOLD editing is and is not and when it can be used. As with anything not dealing with straight-up reverts, much depends on the situation. To keep things sane (well, as sane as possible) for both editors and admins, I rely on "this includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged". So, for example, if material has challenged as being not important enough for the body, and someone, being bold, adds a summation to the lead, I would take that as violating consensus-required. But if material was being challenged as not important enough for the lead, and someone, being bold, added new material to the body that bolstered the importance then I would probably be okay with that. It would be up to editors to challenge that material. And lest anyone get ideas, adding new material when restoring old, challenged material is still a violation of consensus-required. Unless Mandruss' "few additional words" can address a myriad of situations, we'll have to use the edit-challenge mechanism. Please note that a part of the community is already shaking their heads at all the restrictions and wondering why "a pox on both their houses" solution hasn't been implemented. I'd rather see editors passionate and knowledgeable in the area actually editing in the area with the inevitable disruption caused by conflict holding at manageable levels but that choice isn't solely mine to make. If I was editing in this area, I would follow the same practice I use when I edit policies/guidelines/templates - always propose changes on the talk page first and see if there's feedback. This often helps with buy-in as editors are less likely to reflexively revert if they've been given a chance to provide input. However I realize that "edit the page and see what sticks" is also very much in the Wikipedia spirit - just don't know how effective a technique it is here, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Is "content is under discussion" a legitimate reason for challenge requiring consensus under bullet 1? If so, we have no problem except for the wasted two edits. There will usually be at least one editor around who believes we should have consensus first as a matter of principle, has a 1R, and is willing to spend it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here. If you're asking can an editor challenge an edit and invoke consensus-required by reverting and saying the material is under discussion then the answer is yes. However see my post below. The reverting editor should ideally also participate in the discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: The reverting editor should ideally also participate in the discussion. Well I have to disagree with that part. An editor not involved in that particular discussion is more likely to be reverting on process principle rather than as a weapon in a content dispute, and an "involved" revert will often raise the discussion's temperature a little more than an "uninvolved" one. "Uninvolved" is a generally good thing in all kinds of applications (I see this as roughly equivalent to hatting part of a discussion, for example—"uninvolved" is not required, but it helps). And, if it were limited to those involved, the number of editors who had a 1R and were willing to spend it would be significantly reduced. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think "hatting" is already overused (just my opinion) and I fail to see how "participation" in discussion can ever be a bad thing—whether an editor is "involved" or "uninvolved". In my opinion we all tend to be "involved" even if only to a small degree. Circumstances and various personal abilities allow for the appearance of a lesser degree of involvedness but in many instances an opinion is held even by those not particularly "involved". Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

When an editor blanket reverts an entire paragraph or more, such as has been done with content MelanieN has thoughtfully written and inserted in the article, that reverting editor cannot claim it's a good faith revert without stating in detail the problems they identified that led them to reject a colleague's work in toto. We have more than one editor here who simply and serially revert entire sections of content with meaningless edit summaries like "remove talking point du jour" or "controversy of the day". This is passive aggressive obstruction and it deters serious NPOV editors from contributing their time here. I think any such unexplained revert should be reversed on sight, exempt from the "consensus required" rule. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I don't think you're going to get much agreement for that suggestion. New material can be challenged; consensus-required is not waived just because you don't think their edit summary is adequate. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

If the reverting editor were to proceed to the talk page to explain the reason for their revert, with detail, policy concerns, or alternative proposals, that would be constructive per BRD. When we repeatedly see the same flip "no" and a dismissive revert of an entire section, that does not help improve the article and it does not foster a collaborative workplace here. I hope that is clearer. SPECIFICO talk 11:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I personally call these "hit-and-run reverts" and had to deal with an instance of these here. Consensus-required still stands as MelanieN states but that pattern of editing (and please, more than two or three edits) can be reported. If I was handling the report and saw a clear pattern of hit-and-run reverts then I would probably require the editor to post a meaningful explanation on the talk page before reverting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:, thank you for that very responsive and constructive message. This issue was first raised, I believe by @Volunteer Marek: and further articulated by @MrX: and derided as a peraonal disparagement by @JFG:. At any rate, no more needs to be said about it here on the article talk page and you have provided a clear path to resolving this problem. Again, thank you. . SPECIFICO talk 12:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Please point out the edit where I "derided" anyone, or retract your WP:ASPERSION. — JFG ^talk 17:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, the article should be protected for at least' six months. Editor(s) then can make requests for things to be added or deleted. Of course, no action would be taken on such requests until a consensus from them emerged. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 21 June 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.

Workshop on re-working "Consensus required"

Moved to User:Power~enwiki/AE-DT

I would like to make a proposal to improve the "consensus required" restriction at AE. To discuss/revise that proposal, please see the discussion in my userspace. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Improving the "White supremacist support" section

On 12 June, Tobby72 added[57] the following text to the "White supremacist support" section:

Trump has disavowed white supremacists, alt-right supporters, David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan on multiple occasions,

Shortly thereafter, Galobtter removed[58] a prior sentence:

Trump personally condemned the alt-right in an interview after the election.

for being redundant with Tobby72's wider-scope text. Then today 20 June Volunteer Marek challenged the new text,[59] saying "sketchy source, out of context, undue". I subsequently restored[60] the longstanding phrase dating from 26 October 2017,[61] pending discussion.

Sources

How can we improve this section? My personal impression is that we are giving too much weight to the "bad earpiece" anecdote, and we should provide a higher-level view of Trump's position vs Duke and other white supremacists. I don't have an exact text to propose yet. — JFG ^talk 18:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with all of this, I think that the amount of citations saying he supports white supremacy is UNDUE considering the other reliable sources stating Trump's view. The best thing to do would probably be to implement a paragraph or so talking about his disavowing of David Duke and the KKK and what not. Jdcomix (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's important to go beyond just "Trump condemned Duke, the KKK, etc." After all, that's an oversimplification that removes the necessary nuance of what actually happened. Trump said there were "very fine people on both sides" before denouncing Charlottesville and has sent repeated dogwhistles to white supremacists. This needs to be included to not err by omission. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think the section needs improvement (apart from one dodgy reference). It looks good in its current form. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with JFG about taking out the "bad earpiece" part. That's just their spin and we shouldn't repeat it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

We should not exclude Trump's statements - example: USA Today - Trump also said "not all of those people" who attended the demonstration were not racist or neo-Nazi, but only wanted to protest the city's plans to remove the Robert E. Lee statue. See LATimes article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No. The bit about the statue received very little coverage, so it would violate WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

See NYTimes article. You are taking WEIGHT out of context, re: "bit about the statue", unlike what you claim, actually did receive substantial coverage; therefore, Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Where does it say to exclude such material? Further, NPOV states: ...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: You are mistaken. The ratio of white supremacy/KKK/Duke coverage to statue coverage is about 3000:1, which means it fails per WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

In checking the links you provided, the first 5 included a WaPo article which begins with Larry King's question to Trump on CNN, asking if the David Duke thing bothered him, and Trump replied: “I hate seeing what it represents, but I guess it just shows there’s a lot of hostility in this country. There’s a tremendous amount of hostility in the United States.” The 2nd & 3rd are Snopes fact check articles which debunk the fake photos and failed attempts to link Trump to the KKK. The 3rd link is the NBC Meet The Press interview wherein Trump clearly rebukes Duke. The other sources that followed were opinion pieces, advocacy sources, The Daily Beast article which primarily exposed Duke for what he is along with a weak attempt to tie Trump into that mix, not unlike what HRC detractors tried to do by connecting her to Senator Byrd, a former KKK member whom she admired - we don't do guilt by association. NPOV, V, NEWSORG and LABEL advise us how to treat controversial material, but we must also rely on sound editorial judgment which I liken to our consensus process: Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There are variables to having lots of RS, such as how much weight is given to the allegation in each source, how many of the sources are just reprints of a wire service report, whether the same company owns several news sources, etc. I'm through discussing this issue. Let consensus make the determination. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Right, you can't present the "disavow" without context; that he faced a huge backlash for refusing to do so in the first place. I mean, why would a president even be expected to disavow the KKK, David Duke and white supremacists? Because he invited speculation by refusing to condemn these individuals and organisations when he had the opportunity. That's part of the story here and should be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No change needed The current text is balanced and succinct. The earpiece bit was widely reported and is typical of Trump's behavior when his words are challenged. The two bits that were removed were POV spin. SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The "White supremacist support" section obviously violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – diff – removed content --Tobby72 (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait a second Tobby72, the article already says that Trump disavowed Duke. Now you want to add that he disavowed Duke "on multiple occasions". I don't see that the source states that in their own voice. Please explain.- MrX 🖋 14:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The article says: Trump personally condemned the alt-right in an interview after the election. –"Trump disavows 'alt-right' supporters". BBC News. November 22, 2016. Retrieved October 25, 2017.

I wanted to re-add: Trump has disavowed white supremacists, alt-right supporters, David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan on multiple occasions. –"Trump denounces David Duke, KKK". CNN. March 3, 2016., "Donald Trump: 'Of course,' I renounce all white supremacist support". The Washington Times. March 1, 2016., "Trump disavows 'alt-right' supporters". BBC. November 23, 2016.

David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe. I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK," Trump added. "Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now. CNN, March 3, 2016: -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please don't. The existing text is perfectly fine, because it gives both "sides" the appropriate weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tobby72: You're not adding new information to this discussion. Which of these sources say "Trump disavowed Duke on multiple occasions", and in which paragraph? - MrX 🖋 23:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The sentence says he condemned the alt-right. The BBC article body says he condemned the fringe "alt-right" group that celebrated his election win with Nazi salutes. It doesn't say or suggest that he condemned any other fringe alt-right groups. (As Trump most likely knew, many such groups vocally oppose giving National Socialist salutes, because socialism.) The sentence can accordingly be tagged as a verification fail. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Since when is the Washington Times a reliable source? I don’t even see how we can say "personally condemned" in Wiki voice; it’s a Trump quote from a NYT interview on Nov 22, 2016, after an interviewer specifically asked him whether he was going to condemn people who pledged their allegiance to Nazism. Is it for "balance"? Throughout the campaign, after Charlottesville, and on other occasions he was pretty mealy-mouthed ("both sides"), claiming he didn't know anything about Duke or white supremacy or white supremacist groups but if his interviewers would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them. And, certainly, I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Tobby72 also added the POV tag which hasn't been discussed so far. I'm not sure if I can go ahead and challenge by reverting, so I'm just stating my opposition here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: The tag should be removed. Tobby72 has ignored my request to show any source that states "Trump disavowed Duke on multiple occasions", so the tag is spurious.- MrX 🖋 00:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

YouTube video – Trump disavowed Duke on multiple occasions – August 15, 2017.

David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe. I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK," Trump added. "Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now. — Trump denounces David Duke, KKK – CNN, March 3, 2016

In response to calls from the Anti-Defamation League, Donald J. Trump on Thursday said he “disavows” comments by David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader, about “Jewish extremists” who opposed his candidacy. — Donald Trump ‘Disavows’ David Duke’s Remarks on ‘Jewish Extremists’ – New York Times, May 5, 2016 -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

A WP:COPYVIO youtube video by a conspiracy theorist is not a reliable source. Trump's claims that he disavowed Duke are not usable for obvious reasons. The third source doesn't support the claim that "Trump disavowed Duke on multiple occasions". See WP:OR. - MrX 🖋 13:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

(Seriously, a mash-up of unidentified and unidentifiable video snippets by Mark Dice?) Trump is quoted by CNN as saying on Morning Joe that he had disavowed Duke on numerous occasions; it’s not RS reporting on any of the disavowals. NYT: Trump did not disavow Duke or the KKK or white supremacists, he disavowed specific comments made by Duke on a specific topic and in a specific radio broadcast. Big difference! Besides, why is Trump using "disavow" in the first place? It’s not as if Duke were a member of the same party or of his organization, or is he? Denounce, rebuke, condemn, reject … as racist, anti-semitic … - the English language has a "yuge" vocabulary, and Trump said that he has the best words, but unfortunately he doesn’t seem to be using them or know how to use them. He could have simply said that he does not endorse hate groups and didn't ask for or want their support. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The first thing that has to change in the section is the header/title. Immediately. As it stands, it looks like Trump supports White Supremacist groups. Which he doesn't, so the header is incredibly dishonest, misleading, and - to a degree - POV. Should read: Support from White Supremacy groups. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Per White supremacy, "white supremacy" is not capitalized. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump says (from time to time) he doesn't, but in fact RS tell us he does so the text, as it stands, is OK. More detailed text can, of course, be added. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

No, the heading does not need to change. Read some sources or even do Google search. There is evidence aplenty that Trump does support white supremacists[62][63][64] and vice versa[65][66].- MrX 🖋 15:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Republican support, socialist support, lunatic fringe support: Is that support for or by Republicans, socialists, the lunatic fringe? The construction may be a little ambiguous, but my impression was "support by." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX, please...there is absolutely no evidence that Trump "supports" white supremacists anymore than Obama supported Islamic terrorism. Surely you have the needed editorial discretion to make a sound judgment call between what biased clickbait media portrays and what Trump's actions and actual FACTS tell us. Show me one instance in the Trump presidency that supports white supremacy other than the spin by biased media, and I will expeditiously change my position about the topic. Until then - I agree with JFG - it needs to be revisited. If local consensus doesn't clear this up, then we should probably call an RfC to get it resolved once and for all. What I find most disconcerting is the urgency in which the opposition expects an answer, and when their demands are not met within their demanded time frame, they consider it reason enough to question a U.S. President's credibility. I'm ok with the questioning but I'm not ok with the media creating their own facts after the questions have been answered. Time published President Donald Trump sharply condemned racist, white supremacist, and neo-Nazi sympathizers on Monday afternoon, after nearly 48 hours of bipartisan criticism over his response to the weekend’s violent clashes in Charlottesville, Va. but of course, they had to add their own spin. A CNN headline: Trump signs resolution condemning white supremacy and Congress passed the resolution...and there are multiple sources that debunk your allegations of white supremacist views. How much blood do you need from that turnip? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not taking the bait. I will let other editors decide if what I wrote conforms to reality.- MrX 🖋 21:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll take the bait. Obama never described al Qaeda or ISIS as having "very fine people". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh my - I wasn't baiting anyone, Muboshgu - I am not a master baiter......I am a Debater who expresses positions that support my arguments. I'm not trying to "trap" anyone into anything per WP:BAIT. I am truly interested in what arguments support the opposition. I am also a believer in "actions speak louder than words"...and am of the mind that few will disagree. As for the Obama argument...actions do speak louder than words...Handel said the Obama administration admitted that nearly $2 billion flown to Iran is being used to fund terrorism and various supporting activities. She is more specific than the record supports. One way or another, the United States transferred $1.7 billion owed to Iran. As for what the administration admitted, Kerry said it was likely that some portion of any money Iran received would go to its top security organization and some of that money would end up advancing terrorism. So...what like actions can we attribute to Trump as evidence that he knowingly supports white supremacy? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump is certainly not out there at a Klan rally the way he attends NRA or right-to-life events, we're not suggesting Trump is actively and publicly rooting for these people. The issue with Trump and white supremacism is his tacit approval via dog whistles, failure to denounce in a timely fashion, etc. He's quite willing to receive their support, and does the bare minimum of "denouncing" them to avoid the really bad press. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

That is POV judgment based on the opposition's timeline and demands for expediency. C'mon, Muboshgu - it is ridiculous to expect any world leader to respond immediately to anything from the media. For us to form opinions based on speculation and what is considered "timely" is ludicrous at best. We suffer "timely" here on WP - just went through that regarding a TP incident. A WP BLP about a standing U.S. president deserves far better than speculation and POV judgments. Leave the politics out of the article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Have you read your source past the headline? The article states very clearly that it didn't happen the way you claim it did, i.e., Congress passing a resolution after Trump had signed it: Congress passed the resolution earlier this week, pushing Trump to put his signature on something expressly singling out white supremacy for condemnation. Here's a quote from another CNN article from a day earlier: Congress passed the bipartisan joint resolution condemning the Charlottesville violence -- as well as "white nationalists, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups"-- earlier this week, pushing Trump to sign the resolution explicitly condemning the racist gathering. The House passed the joint resolution by unanimous consent Tuesday night, a day after the Senate easily approved it.condemning the Charlottesville violence -- as well as "white nationalists, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups" (CNN-9-13-17). The first paragraph of your CNN source also says that Trump signed Hours after he returned to rhetoric equating violence from white supremacists with those protesting them. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I vaguely remembered this but had to search for it: For once, Trump signed his name without fanfare, no pictures, no press present, no tweets then or later The White House sent out a statement Thursday night announcing that Trump had signed it behind closed doors. (USNews). And after the signing (the same day), he went right back to you have some pretty bad dudes on the other side also. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Our perspectives on the CNN source are clearly different. I tend not to focus on single words like "pushing" to establish context, and I steer clear of SOAPBOX, as difficult as it may be when humanity is involved, but NPOV requires strict adherence in these instances - dispassionate tone being paramount - using in-text attribution for contentious statements. We don't state opinions as facts and vice versa. Trump has said all along that he was ready and willing to sign a bill - responses like "looks forward to" and that he will "absolutely sign" following his condemnation and actual signing of the bill speak volumes to me - facts accompanied by unequivocal evidence. Perhaps the media considered "pushing" to be the following: "While it's not uncommon for resolutions to go through the House and the Senate, it's rare that they head to the President for signature. But framing it as a joint resolution ensures it will land on the President's desk. As for his signing the bill behind closed doors...so what? It's speculation and falls short of having any longterm encyclopedic value and what I consider UNDUE. The NYTimes published a "collection of partisan writing" in response to what took place. I most appreciated 5:38's take on the event, noting the following comment by the article's author, Perry Bacon Jr.: "To what extent is Trump driving the country towards more white-identity politics? I’m not sure, since it’s hard to determine the cause and effect here: Did Obama’s election, the events of 2014, such as Ferguson and its aftermath, and the nation’s increasing diversity create an atmosphere for “white lives matter”-style activism that Trump was able to tap into? Or did his campaign create the movement in some ways? Or did Trump simply expand or highlight what was already there? I don’t know." ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Travel ban

I'm seeking consensus to change this sentence in the lead:

During his presidency, Trump 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.

to:

During his presidency, Trump 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. The ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling.

In light of the Supreme Court ruling.[67] I'm not married to this wording, but we should update the lead accordingly.- MrX 🖋 16:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to update the wording in the lead, it should be made shorter, not longer. I have no suggestion on a text yet. — JFG ^talk 16:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with JFG. A SCOTUS ruling to uphold a presidential order so hotly discussed, contested, and litigated for 18 months deserves more than a quick mention in the lead. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, shorter would be better, How about "During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, which was upheld by the Supreme Court after legal challenges."? - MrX 🖋 16:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support expansion, but suggest additional expansion for clarity: The revised ban was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5-4 ruling along ideological lines. It's important to say it was the revised ban (V3.0) that was upheld, not the earlier bans enacted by the Trump administration. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• It should be possible to indicate the nature of the revision(s) in a single sentence - otherwise it is not clear that the initial ban violated fundamental Constitutional principals. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• To be clear, I meant that sentence to be an alternative to MrX's wording, not an addition. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Alternative - perhaps this would be better: During his presidency, Trump 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 later upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5-4 ruling along ideological lines. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with inserting opinion about "ideological lines" in the lead. — JFG ^talk 16:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not an opinion. It's in the vast majority of reliable sources already. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of it is an opinion or not is excessive detail for the lead of this article. A shorter version would be preferred and getting rid of "ideological lines" seems like a good place to start. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Building on MrX's suggestion, how about this:

Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, which was legally challenged; a revised version was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Still short, accurate and chronological, with all relevant links preserved for more detail. I have deliberately omitted the "During his presidency" part, which will depend on where this phrase is placed; it is not covered by current consensus. The "citing security concerns" bit could still be added if editors feel it's important enough (that would keep us closest to prior consensus). — JFG ^talk 16:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

No. 5-4 along ideological lines is important. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This fact is certainly worth mentioning in the relevant articles, and perhaps in the body here. Too much detail for the lead. — JFG ^talk 16:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Hardly any words for a key detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Many many Supreme Court decisions are split along "ideological lines", there is nothing exceptional enough to mention here (the lede section of the presidential BLP, not an article about the contested executive order or the SC decision itself). — JFG ^talk 17:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the vote count is too much detail for the lead. It belongs in the body of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Any of the proposals so far are fine with me. I prefer brevity.- MrX 🖋 16:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Early in his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns. A revised version of the ban, amended to mitigate the religious bias of the original, was implemented after legal challenges. The revised version was upheld by the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision along ideological lines.

(I am indifferent to the "along ideological lines" -- that can be covered in the separate article about the ban or in the body of this article. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Most of the reliable sources covering today's ruling make a point of saying the ruling was along ideological lines, and that had Obama not been obstructed by McConnell it likely would've gone the other way. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, and had Trump not been elected, we all would be discussing something else. Hanging on to regrets over Merrick Garland today does not help us decide what is relevant enough to this lede section. — JFG ^talk 17:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you not read what I said earlier? It's reliable sources making the point about the ideological lines, not me. Virtually EVERY article discussing the ruling talks about it, and the vast majority refer back to the Garland decision. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, you can count on getting personal disparagement and deflection when there's no substantive objection to your position. My "indifferent" is because I think we can link to lots of detail in other articles for the legal issues, the opinions, and the politicization of this court. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: And I suppose you did read what I wrote, viz. This fact is certainly worth mentioning in the relevant articles, and perhaps in the body here. Too much detail for the lead. I feel we must just agree to disagree on the appropriate weight of this point of detail. — JFG ^talk 19:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Scjessey's alternative version. It's important to know that it was the ban revised after legal challenges and also that the judges decided along ideological lines. If anyone thinks it's too long for the lead, then lets remove "calling the investigation a politically motivated "witch hunt." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support SPECIFICO's version although I'm not sure what the "along ideological lines" part means. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: It means that all of the conservative judges voted one way and all the liberal judges voted another. A related phrase, "along party lines", meaning the division was between Republicans and Democrats, is often used interchangably. They don't mean the same thing, though when applied in the US they usually are. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic rant. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well the Trump-haters are most certainly dominating the content of this article. It is so full of opinion already that it will take decades to clean up. This is exactly the type of brain-washing propaganda that brings more and more free thinking people to support Trump. News flash - since you apparently didn't grasp this fact after the election...Most Americans prefer to draw their own opinions, forcing your views down their throats only turns them away.ISAnerd (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• (conditional) Oppose - clarity is needed because key points have been omitted regarding the ban & decision, which makes the material come across a bit POVish and leaves readers wondering why these things happened. I've included suggestions (green text) for the language that should be added for clarity and compliance with NPOV - BALANCE:

1. Trump issued a travel ban, titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"
2. The ban affected several Muslim-majority countries that support terrorist activities, or where such activities are known to exist. <-- it's about terrorism, not Muslims;
3. Implementation of the ban had been delayed by legal challenges - a series of lower court decisions had ruled the ban unconstitutional.
4. In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban as a "legitimate exercise of executive branch authority" in a 5-4 ruling, reversing the lower court decisions. A good RS to cite is USA Today. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ^{Adding that I'm ok with these suggestions being in the body text in lieu of the lede. 18:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)}

• Support original version, oppose SPECIFICO's version - The 1st version is fine because it lets the reader draw their own conclusion, but the second one (with the "along ideological lines") has a pretty negative undertone to the decision, so I don't think it's appropriate. I'd support it if that line was excluded entirely. Jdcomix (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we should eliminate "Muslim-majority countries". In the version SCOTUS upheld, two countries are not Muslim-majority. (That's how he got around the religious discrimination angle.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not - The ban is the result of Trump's calculated plan to ban Muslims from our shores. The fact that Trump threw in a couple of other countries after the fact does not change that. - MrX 🖋 22:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Somehow we need to convey that this is the "Muslim Ban" of the 2016 campaign but with 2 countries thrown in to improve the odds after several judicial stays. The "partisan 5-4" bit need not go in the lead or even in this article, but we need to cover the "Muslim Ban" part and cover how the Administration successfully framed the constitutional issue by throwing in NK and VZ. I mean, how many NK immigrants have we had in the past 50 years? 3 maybe? SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Come on, MrX, there was never a "calculated plan to ban Muslims from our shores". Yes, there was over-the-top campaign rhetoric, but executive orders (even the first one) did not target the largest Muslim countries: Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, Turkey, Malaysia, etc. Time to move on. — JFG ^talk 23:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit.- MrX 🖋 23:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)