Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: books in lead

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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)

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. Do not add web archives to cited sources which 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) (Superseded by RfC Aug 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. (October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (October 2021)

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)

By weight in sources, Special Counsel investigation should be in lead

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.

---

By virtue of its weight in the reliable source record, the Special Counsel investigation and subsequent non-impeachment, and the associated controversy, scandal, et al., should be in the lead section as part of this man's life. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The investigation has been one of the most discussed events in his presidency so far, and I don't see it going away any time soon. Mgasparin (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too early to know lasting impact. What we "see" is irrelevant crystal-balling. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support, the investigation is extremely prominent. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC).
• Lean Oppose (for now) - While the investigation is tremendously prominent and has oodles of WP:WEIGHT, can we really say it has had a significant impact on Trump's life? We need sources that specifically say that the investigation has directly impacted his life and/or his presidency. There are definitely articles that talk about how the investigation has prevented Trump from fully executing his agenda, and they would be a good place to start, but I can't support just plopping the fact of the investigation into the lead until those conditions are met. Much will depend on whether or not Trump is impeached, because the investigation will be a prominent component of that, but unless and until that happens, we're just feeding the Speculatron™. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Mostly... saying what? I’m inclined against buying into something sight unseen, just by the sales description. Perhaps the proposal means: “There was an investigation seeking ‘collusion’ of his campaign and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that he denounced as a politically motivated Witch-hunt. It found no conspiracy but considered aspects of his opposition as potentially Obstruction of justice. “. Also - that it had no collusion or impeachment or other impact on his life and isn’t something he did inclines me to think it just shouldn’t get much coverage in his BLP, that instead the amount of content on this should be reduced and it be a short body mention that points to the article(s) about it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, not prominent at all. But along the lines of Scjessey and Markbassett if something happens with it then by all means. PackMecEng (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Possibly support some brief inclusion of the investigation. Oppose mention of "subsequent non-impeachment, and the associated controversy, scandal, et al.". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Scjessey. If, for example, Trump was impeached due to the special counsel investigation then it would make sense to put it in the lede. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This was in the news literally every day for two years-plus and was all over other media from youtube to Saturday Night Live. Anyway the mention here would be brief due to the several other related articles that can be linked for detailed information on the investigation. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The investigation owes its oodles to Trump's existence and association with it, but Trump and his image are virtually the same in its wake as they were in its upsurge. Not a mutual boost. It's like how Bigfoot or Elizabeth II belong upfront in articles about TV shows, books and "experts" revolving around them, but these coattailers/ripples/satellites appear tucked deeper down in the main subjects' bodies. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, August 29, 2019 (UTC)
• Support - certainly, the case for inclusion is weakened since he wasn't indicted (yet, keeping in mind he wasn't exonerated on obstruction of justice). But re-reading the lede, especially the last paragraph, I conclude that this investigation probably trumps several of those items in the last lede paragraph and is certainly a defining feature of his presidency and by weight in sources. starship.paint (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Also keep in mind, the report didn't exonerate anybody it studied and was never supposed to. Weighs the same for everyone, that absence of fact. The last paragraph is about stuff he did do, so not fair to compare. Experts feeling he might be obstructive or collusive should be weighed against experts feeling he might be surprising, lying or racist. Maybe fits in that paragraph. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, August 30, 2019 (UTC)

• Support but only brief coverage of the investigation. There's not much room for more in the lead. The investigation is now part of Trump's legacy. Also, coverage of non-impeachment and associated controversy (drama) should be no more than a short sentence. Besides, all the stuff in the lead is kind of old news - we do need to be current (imho). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support brief coverage (about two lines) of the investigation and its outcome. — JFG ^talk 07:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The special counsel investigation has been over for almost 6 months now and so far nothing has really come of it. Unless/until the Democrats in the House actually get around to at least holding impeachment hearings, it's just not consequential enough to belong in the lead. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2019 (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.

Art of the Deal authorship in lead

The lead currently states: He co-authored several books, including The Art of the Deal. I propose this be changed to the following: He released several ghostwritten books, including The Art of the Deal. There was a previous discussion on this topic here that got very heated/convoluted, which I'd ideally like to avoid repeating, but the basic case for the change is this: reporting by The New Yorker (the gold standard of a reliable source) establishes that Trump did not write any of it, and additional sources establish the same for his other books. - Sdkb (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Going into a little further detail regarding The Art of the Deal, the New Yorker reporting cites the publisher and ghostwriter, who both maintain Trump was not involved in the writing process, plus mixed statements by Trump himself (which I'd argue should be given little weight given his record). There was some discussion about the semantics of "co-author" versus "ghostwriter", since Tony Schwartz was officially listed as a co-author of the book. The salient point for me is that both the WP article on ghostwriting and most dictionaries state that the term encompasses writing where the true author is given some acknowledgement but not full credit, and it is preferable to "co-author" because it more clearly communicates to readers the basic fact of Trump's non-involvement. - Sdkb (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Don’t be silly — User:Sdkb Author is given by the book itself, and by the copyright. All else is irrelevant, but I have to add that for author (creator) it was Trump’s project, title, material, and self-aggrandizing, and that Schwartz was hired — and suggest you look at what the articles say about Author versus Ghostwriter. The collaborator, researcher, proofreader, copyeditor, whatever normally gets some mention as a courtesy. That Schwartz got cover credit is more than seems usual. There is no obligation to even name the hired worker(s) at all - though that might cause a stir, see the “ThankYouGate” of Hillary Clinton It Takes a Village Ghostwriter controversy. If you find any contemporary claim disputing Trump has a claim to Author then fine - but if all you have is post-2015, I would suggest that has to be viewed with suspicion of it being politically tainted. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it. Proposal would be excessive and denial is primary, OR, and inconsistent with longstanding consensus at the books's WP article. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support SPECIFICO's edit - "publish" is the right way to phrase this without getting caught up in the brambles. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with "published", but "co-authored" is also fine. Subsequent sections of the article deal with the specific circumstances of Trump's role in these books, and both "published" and "co-authored" are factually correct. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 15:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere have I seen Wikipedia state as fact that Trump co-authored this book. So, no it is not fine, right? SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree that "co-authored" is factually inaccurate, but if I'm being particularly pedantic you could argue "published" isn't accurate either. Trump isn't a publisher, is he? A better way of putting it would be this:

He has had several books published, including The Art of the Deal.

By saying he's had them published, we get around the fact he is not a publisher. Nor does it falsely claim he co-authored/wrote any of these books. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Markbassett's reasoning above, which is that co-authorship is determined by the book itself and the copyright. It is not necessarily depending on how active, if at all, that co-author was. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 19:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That's sort of academic. Do we have sources that say Trump wrote the book? No. Do we have sources saying Trump co-authored the book? No. Do we have sources that say Schwartz wrote the book? Yes. But saying it was Schwartz's book would be silly, hence the use of the word "published" to remove all need for inaccuracy or awkwardness. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There's actually quite a lot of reliable sources that describe Schwartz as Trump's co-author. [[1]] But it's all beside the point as I think the consensus is moving toward "published", which is fine by me. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 20:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

When I drafted out my proposal for this section, I actually initially used "published" rather than "released", but I changed it due to the same thought Scjessey had. I think "released" gets around the potential confusion of "published" and sounds less awkward than "had published". I still oppose "co-authored" — regardless of how authorship is technically established, the typical reader will interpret it to mean Trump was actively involved in writing the book, and will thus be misled.

Regarding "ghostwritten", I understand the desire to not get caught up in the controversial brambles, but I don't think our desire to avoid controversy should be reason to allow Trump to bluster his way into receiving undue credit. I reiterate that his non-involvement in the writing of the books attributed to him is an essential fact to communicate to readers, and if "ghostwritten" accurately describes what took place (as I argued above), we should use it, not seek less descriptive language that blurs the issue to avoid ruffling feathers. Sdkb (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think our desire to avoid controversy should be reason to allow Trump to bluster his way into receiving undue credit. I think that if we're looking to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS perpetrated by Donald Trump, there are probably more fruitful avenues. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 12:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Nice try, but that policy refers to moral wrongs, whereas in this case we're talking about a factual inaccuracy, which it absolutely is WP's role to correct. I probably could've chosen better language, but the distinction stands regardless. Sdkb (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't be silly about published either - again, matter of record and it's right in the book - Ballantine Books (of Random house ?) is the publisher, the ones who paid both authors Trump and Schwartz royalty money. Look, we have legal copyright, the book itself, plenty of RS, and routine precedents for Ghostwriters. Against that is a disputed verbals that are not going anywhere, and some OR trying to reinvent the whole terminology just for this one person. Or are we proposing to take away all of Clintons books and half of Obamas and Bush and so on ? I doubt we can even identify all the ghostwriters. Give it up -- facts are the book is officially by Donald J. Trump with Tony Schwartz. Copyright held by Trump. Published by Ballantine books. Making change back to that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Great! Except consensus is going a different way. It doesn't matter that Trump holds the copyright, he still didn't write it. Scooter Braun holds the copyright to Taylor Swift's back catalog and he obviously didn't write that either. Moreover, how books are credited in other articles has no bearing on how they are credited in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett:Please see my comment above in which your arguments are refuted. You're repeating those arguments, based on a primary source and your own OR. As noted, your "consensus" justification for reinserting the prior text, text that nobody else has said they prefer, is incorrect. Moreover, this article is no longer on "consensus required", and the new 24-hour BRD is designed to prevent a single editor from blocking constructive improvement by claiming "no consensus" when the only disagreement comes from one editor or a small minority. Also WP:WHATABOUTISM. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that last bit doesn't hold water. Particularly in the AP2 area, an editor who repeatedly claimed "no consensus" when the only disagreement comes from one editor or a small minority would be a fairly straightforward topic ban. That's classic disruption, and we don't need creative new sanctions to deal with it. I'm fairly certain that is not what the new 24-hour BRD is designed to do. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

As I read it, there is no clear consensus here. That might be improved by a survey; and we've RfCed less significant things than this. In my opinion, Markbassett is not clearly out of line to assert "no consensus" (yet) in this case. I don't think he's saying we should stop trying for a consensus; if he is, I would disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with "published", or "had published". Trump's misuse of the English language has grown legendary, after all; he writes like he talks. Lindenfall (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse Scjessey's proposal as the most accurate. starship.paint (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Published seems most accurate.--MONGO (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support "He published several books, including The Art of the Deal." — JFG ^talk 07:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign

List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign and List of post-election Donald Trump rallies were nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC: books in lead

A recent discussion saw quite a lot of comments on wanting to change this sentence in the lead: He co-authored several books, including The Art of the Deal. Let's discuss to produce a consensus whether it should remain, or be changed. Which sentence should be present in the lead? starship.paint (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Option A (no change): He co-authored several books, including The Art of the Deal.
• Option B: He published several books, including The Art of the Deal.
• Option C: He has had several books published, including The Art of the Deal.
• Option D: Omit from the lead completely, per WP:UNDUE.

- starship.paint (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey for books in lead

• Option C first choice, Option B second choice - the amount of ghostwriting done on Trump's behalf leaves me uncomfortable with Option A. Reading his tweets, the ghostwriting seems necessary. Between Option B and Option C, as Trump himself is not a publishing company, Option C is preferable. starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D: omit it altogether as UNDUE for a lead, but will accept published, had published, released, contributed to. Donald Trump CLAIMS to have co-authored the books; other informed parties (including the author and publisher) dispute this. A reasonable reader would not take "publish" to mean he stitched the binding himself, but they would think "co-authored" meant he wrote it, which is not supported by the facts. No one thinks "wrote" means "holds the copyright for." GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option C or Option D (equally weighted). For me, this is a binary thing. Either we use the accurate "has had published" language (which I freely admit is a little awkward), or we don't have anything at all. Trump is not a publisher or an author, so options A or B would be inaccurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option B or Option A - One need not be a publishing company to have something published, as per the dictionary definition of the word. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: You just wrote: One need not be a publishing company to have something published. Absolutely correct, but you do need to be a publishing company to publish something (leaving aside the whole self publishing thing). That fact that you worded your response the way you did argues that option C is the way to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that "published" does not exclude the same meaning present with "has had published". But "has had published" sounds terrible. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my comment above, "has had published" sounds a little awkward, but it is at least accurate; however, claiming that Trump published something (or wrote something, frankly) would be wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Option B or Option A. B sounds much more natural than C, and it's similar in structure to the opening line of the It Takes a Village article. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D first choice with Option C as 2nd. Since there are reliable claims that trump did little to nothing in the authorship of the books best to either leave them off or word it more neutral that he has books published about him but without the addition he was somehow the author of them. ContentEditman (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option C (first choice) or Option D (second choice). The most accurate statement appears to be C: "has had published". Since The Art of the Deal is a fairly commonly known book title, it does seem to warrant inclusion in the lead paragraph. Lindenfall (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option C or Option D (equally weighted). Agree with Scjessey’s reasons above. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 21:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D: omit it altogether as UNDUE for a lead. Since he almost certainly had little to do with their writing, and lies about his role, they do not warrant any mention in the lead, and only short mention in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• B - The usage "published a book" is fairly common, especially where the instigator of the publication, in this case Trump, is not the author. I don't think "published" necessarily entails a press and a truck. As to D. Yes, we do have body content and a separate article for details about this book, but think it was undeniably a significant factor in Trump's early fame, with a brilliant title, and it preceded a lot of other famous Trump branding, such as his TV career and race-related trolling. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D first choice with (very reluctant) Option C as 2nd. Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D most certainly. He is not well known for being an author or book publisher, and many politicians have written or published books. If we must include a mention, Option C would be the best method, but removing the word "has" from "he has had". Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option C or A seem best of the choices - option A (no change) seems sort of OK because we've not got anything new to really push for a change, and option C seems sort of OK because 'had published' covers the ones he is sole author for as well as the co-authored ones. Though at eighteen, it is "numerous" or "many" rather than "several" books. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

How many books is Trump the "sole author" of? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

He may be the only one credited, but no one seriously believes he penned a single word. He isn't capable of such a feat. That's what his biographers tell us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Option D. Too messy: you can't easily mention the books without getting into the weeds of his not having written them. Guy (help!) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option A He's a credited author, and that's what we can verify. Art of the Deal is an important book in terms of what it did to his Q score, so I'm against Option D. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option A (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• First choice A, second choice B – Totally oppose D, because The Art of the Deal has been a key element of Trump's notability, decades before he entered politics, hence DUE for the lead section. — JFG ^talk 11:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  Bankruptcies have been a key element of Trump's notability, decades before he entered politics, hence DUE for the lead section. See what I did there? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, JFG's argument doesn't really hold up, as Donald Trump "notability" primarily derived from him being a loud and proud sexual predator and racist, and we're certainly not putting THAT in the lead. Trump was a laughing-stock throughout the 80s, and TAotD was relentless ridiculed contemporaneously as everyone knew Trump inherited most his wealth and had no skill as a deal-maker. It's no more important than the steaks or the board game. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Scjessey: No objection from me to adding a line about Trump's business fortunes and misfortunes to the lead. His casino ventures and related bankruptcies are indeed part of his notability. @GreatCaesarsGhost: Thanks for your opinion. — JFG ^talk 20:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion for books in lead

Notifying previous commenters:

• @Sdkb, Markbassett, and SPECIFICO: starship.paint (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• @May His Shadow Fall Upon You, GreatCaesarsGhost, and JFG: starship.paint (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• @Scjessey, Mandruss, and Lindenfall: starship.paint (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This RfC does not include options for "released" rather than "published", or for whether or not to include "ghostwritten" (which could be combined with co-authored/published/released/whatever other word), both of which have previously been discussed. I'm on mobile right now, but Starship or someone else, please add them. - Sdkb (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sdkb: - I didn't add them because nobody supported them other than you, and we had 10 people in the previous discussion. Too many options makes it harder to achieve a consensus. Furthermore your proposal was the very first one, at the top of the discussion, surely it would have been the most read. starship.paint (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: There was support from multiple parties for "ghostwritten" in last year's discussion, and nothing has substantively changed since then. Regarding "released", I'm honestly somewhat perplexed, since I think I made a reasonably solid case for it, but no one has voiced either support or opposition. If anyone has thoughts about it, they might be able to persuade me to withdraw it, but until then, I object to your dismissing it out of hand by excluding it from the RfC. Sdkb (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sdkb: - reading the old discussions, yes, there was support for "ghostwritten", but there was also clear rejections of "ghostwritten". The thing is, while in the above discussion no one has voiced either support or opposition for your proposal, the important part is that almost everyone in the above discussion voiced support for a proposal other than yours. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• I regret to say that this RfC seems to be making things worse. We were either at or close to consensus in the previous thread. Now we have a formal RfC that will bring in additional new editors less familiar with the previous discussions or with the decisions made at The Art of the Deal article. Seems like this is excessively formal and likely counterproductive for a relatively unimportant matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'm sorry. I tried my best on this. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  No personal criticism intended. It's a result of the persistent "consensus required" tactic even after that sanction has been deprecated in favor of incremental improvement via revert and modification. Perhaps in the future an alternative to an RfC would simply be to ask an outsider to close the discussion thread. Dunno. The politics articles have lost many good editors since the "special sanctions" fiasco of the past year. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well, nobody invited an outside closer yet... so I did what I thought was right. starship.paint (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  For the avoidance of doubt, I meant absolutely no criticism of you. From what I've seen you have been one of the most active and clear-minded editors on this article in recent months. I was addressing the the idea that the best is the enemy of the better, and I was suggesting we try to go with the 24-hour BRD model rather than rejecting incremental improvements by reverting back to a flawed imperfect version and tying ourselves in knots on the discussion page. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  Okay cool, @SPECIFICO:. I take zero offense. Perhaps we should try that. starship.paint (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: You do understand that we're only discussing the lead section here? The ghostwriting thing is already undisturbed in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC) @Muboshgu: Do you have an independent secondary RS that verifies Trump wrote the book? I have not seen anything of the sort, and apparently neither have the editors at the book's standalone article. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I didn't say he wrote the book. I said he's credited as an author. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I saw that you endorsed option A, which does say in WP's voice that he was the co-author. I have not seen any independent secondary RS verification of that. Have you? SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The cover of the book. He's listed as an author. And everything written about it confirms he's credited as an author. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I am trying to be very clear and simple. The article text you endorse, with A states, in WP's voice, that Trump is the co-author of the book. Surely, you do not consider the cover of the book an independent, secondary, Reliable Source for that statement? Your "credited as an author" is not what option A says. Option A says he was the co-author. That's quite a different statement, and it's one that the article text does not support, per the cited references. SPECIFICO talk 12:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Yes, very much so. It's fine in the body because there is space for the context. In the lede, not so much. We don't need to list every grift there. Guy (help!) 09:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Economy and trade

There was some consensus for this previously but since it's been a few months, I think I should raise this again at the talk page. Would there be any objection to changing the following paragraph:

The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through Trump's first two years in office, although it did not accelerate as Trump had promised during his campaign. Trump had asserted that a policy of tax cuts and deregulation would result in 3% annualized GDP growth, and perhaps much higher, but it reached a high of 2.9% in his second year, while the average growth rates of job creation and inflation-adjusted weekly earnings were considerably lower than during the preceding four years. Economists were nevertheless impressed with the continued strength of the economy nearly ten years into its expansion, as the unemployment rate continued declining, to below 4%, amid only modest inflation. The Dow increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office, the second best performance of any president since Gerald Ford, exceeded only by Barack Obama's 48.6% gain. While in office, Trump has repeatedly and falsely characterized the economy during his presidency as the best in American history.

With this?:

Economic growth has continued during Trump's term as president. In attempts to further stimulate growth, his economic policies have largely centred around tax cuts and deregulation, which he has credited for economic growth as high as 2.9% in his second year, although rates of job creation and household earnings have been lower than during the four years preceding his presidency. The unemployment rate has also continued declining, to below 4%, amid relatively low inflation, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office.

I encourage further improvements but I think this goes a long way to reducing the editorial style and creating a more encyclopaedic summary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This matter has been thoroughly and exhaustively discussed and you have repeatedly failed to establish consensus to change the content. soibangla (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There hasn't been any exhaustive discussion, unless you're considering the extended discussions you and I had with each other. There was a majority in favour of change last time, but as that was a while ago I have decided to take this to the talk page again. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Per Awilley: "OK, that's enough reverting. You obviously haven't found consensus for this edit, and continuing to revert it back every day or two will likely result in some sort of sanction against you." soibangla (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I really don't wish to argue about any of our previous arguments. They already admitted that they were looking at a different discussion than the then-recent one. Please just keep the discussion here to the subject at hand, even if it's critical, rather than about myself personally. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The edit you propose now is the same edit Awilley told you less than two months ago you clearly did not have consensus for, after you sought his/her assistance to restore it, after your reversions had been repeatedly rejected and you had been admonished about it. There was a majority in favour of change last time Actually, some editors proposed a variety of changes, but together they did not result in a consensus on the final form for the paragraph, so the long-standing version prevailed. And here we go... again. soibangla (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Even a cursory reading of the proposed alternative reveals multiple POV twists, turns, omissions, and "only modest reduction" in length! I agree with Soibangla. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Thanks for the feedback. Could you tell me what you think the POV twists and omissions are? While I do think brevity is an advantage, this is not about reducing the length of the prose. Who are you quoting when you say "only modest reduction"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. OK, some specifics: 1. What makes you say that Trump's policies are "attempts to stimulate growth" when most RS say they are payday for his donors and a boost to the capital markets? Then, 2. "as high as 2.9%? That's as low as "high" has ever gotten -- extensively discussed in the mainstream press and comment. Then 3, we have the "low inflation" which is now increasingly discussed, including by the US central bankers, as a major policy concern, because Trump/McConnell's massive diversion of cash to the wealthy threatens to precipitate the mother of all liquidity traps, with negative interest rates on the horizon. So, I agree with Scjessey, below, that the shortened version is unduly flattering and not NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Attempting to stimulate growth is not mutually exclusive with wanting to reward donors or capital generally. We could certainly add that these are supply side economics. 2. I'm fine with providing the lowest growth as well as the highest, or an average figure. 2.9% is not a low rate of growth at all. 3. I'm not sure what your disagreement is. All I said was that inflation is low, which you seem to agree with. I am not crediting this or anything to Trump. Is there anything you think I've ommitted? When I get back onto a computer I can hopefully write prose that incorporates your concerns. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but the proposed alternative is laughably hagiographic. It paints an unrealistic picture of reality. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Scjessey, can you tell me what you think of this is hagiographic? There is more criticism of Trump than praise here, but I am open to including further substantive criticism. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

All of it. Your proposed rewrite omits key information and context, and paints "Trump's economy" in a flattering light. I'm not opposed to some sort of change, but this would seem to go in exactly the wrong direction. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Scjessey Please tell me what in particular I omit that you think should remain in some way. If you think there is valid criticism of Trump that I have not included, I would definitely like to know. Overall what I've written says that the positive economic indicators are continuations of the economy rather than caused by him, and I haven't said that they are caused by his actions. I think we might want to add a sentence about inequality, but I wanted to just keep to what was already mentioned in the original paragraph. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Prefer the newer material but think it should not overlook the the huge stock gains under Obama for the sake of comparison.--MONGO (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I would rather remove the mention of the Dow Jones entirely, since I don't think it's particularly relevant in evaluating how the government has impacted the economy. We can make him look good by comparing it to the average or we can make him look bad by comparing him to Obama, whose presidency started when the stock exchange was abnormally low. I don't think we should make Trump look like anything but rather let the facts tell the story. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Prefer the newer material, just data without added OR combinations and comparisons that seem not DUE, unnecessary, and about trying to WP:SYNTH find some way to portray good things as bad. Just keep it simple - statistics about Trump here, leaving statistics about Gerald Ford in his article, and numbers about Obama in his article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Old paragraph. I can't remember my old position on this topic, but re-reading both paragraphs, I can't see a single change I would support. The new version omits crucial context established by the old version. Of the new version, this: credited for economic growth as high as 2.9% in his second year is particularly problematic, the wording seems to suggest that 2.9% is a high number. Trump's promises, and assertions, are certainly important for his own biography. starship.paint (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm still asking for changes to be made here. I don't see the implication in the wording but I'm happy to change that. We can say "of" instead of "as high as" to remove that possible implication. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. However, the rest of your text still removes things I think should be kept. Therefore I cannot support that. starship.paint (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Thank you for the feedback, which things removed do you think should be kept? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: - everything, really (I did say that above). I would not trim any content from that paragraph, sorry. starship.paint (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I submit that the creation of this topic constitutes WP:TENDENTIOUS ("repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions"), an effort to re-litigate a matter — over and over — that has long been settled. I suggest this topic be closed and the current content retained, until perhaps the end of Trump's third year when it can be updated and revisited. soibangla (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Did we have an Rfc previously on this? I always think it is best when issues keep coming up to create an Rfc to bring in fresh voices.--MONGO (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The last discussion on this resulted in a majority supporting the change, but I didn't get around to instituting it. I have not frustrated proper processes, I am correctly using the proper process here. I haven't yet attempted to insert or delete any content related to this particular discussion either. I am seeking the advice of other editors to create a consensus improvement on the article. You should declare that you wrote the original paragraph entirely, as this is clearly influencing your attempts at disrupting this discussion with petty arguments.

If you disagree with my proposed changes, you can simply indicate that respectfully as other editors have done. Discussion is still clearly ongoing and I thank all the editors who have responded with their constructive feedback. I will certainly incorporate what they are saying into a new paragraph that a consensus can agree with. I care deeply about presenting economic information to a wider public, which is why I am choosing this section to focus on. This is absolutely not a personal reflection on you or your abilities as an editor. Most of all, please keep remarks to the discussion at hand rather than about myself personally. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The last discussion on this resulted in a majority supporting the change No, it did not, as Awilley explicity admonished you, as I clearly showed above, but which you repeat of pattern of ignoring and pivoting to something else, which might explain why you say I really don't wish to argue about any of our previous arguments, so instead you come back again and open a new argument as if all the other ones never happened. As I explained earlier, some editors proposed a variety of changes, but nothing condensed into a consensus, and your verbiage, which you propose again here, was rejected. You should declare that you wrote the original paragraph I did, long ago, but pride of authorship is not the issue here. Despite your previous assertion that it's very poor in explaining economics, I explained to you that it doesn't attempt to do that, but I am defending it because I am educated, trained, skilled and experienced in these topics and my work has been intensely scrutinized by countless executives for many years and I am confident that your language is inferior for a good number of reasons, as I have exhaustively explained to you, but you repeatedly dodge and pivot and run to an admin, then lay low for a while and come back and do it all over again. And you think no one should make any comments about your behavior as an editor? Enough, already. soibangla (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I already addressed this. The person you quoted admitted they were looking at the wrong discussion. I was referring to disclosing the authorship in this particular discussion, not previous ones, but that's irrelevant now. I'm only interested in discussing changes to the article. You're welcome to comment on my talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion notice

Please join a discussion at Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Sharpie-gate, about the recent addition of almost 700 words of content about Hurricane Dorian, Trump, and Alabama. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing! soibangla (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Self-hating

The list of attributes at the foot of the main article would be enhanced by the inclusion of self-hatred. Like his father before him, Donald Trump used until recent years to maintain that his grandfather Frederick Trump had been a Swedish immigrant from Karlstad rather than a German draft-dodger from Kallstadt. This misinformation persisted in his autobiography "The Art of the Deal." This behavior has been attributed by commentators to anti-German sentiment in the United States starting from the time of the two world wars.

Something similar might account for the otherwise incongruous combination of striking military postures and denigrating war veterans while himself having avoided compulsory military service. The reams of published comment on DT must include references to these aspects of his behavior. NRPanikker (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• @NRPanikker: - the burden is on you to provide enough WP:RS to demonstrate that material is WP:DUE for inclusion. starship.paint (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

And even if the OP provides sources, we should be mindful of BLP constraints and the recent RfC consensus to not discuss Trump's mental health in this article. — JFG ^talk 12:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The self-hate bit is Original Research. Ergo, nix. We need not get into BLP or additional OR associating "self hate" with "mental health". SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Fact-checkers in lead (Current consensus #35)

The lead reads: "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."

I suggest removing the mention of fact-checkers and combining the two sentences for brevity (as reverted here). The fact-checkers are mentioned at the linked Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, and the reports are in the body with citations, which seem missing in the lead. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

So, your current version, UpdateNerd is:

Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency, which the media has widely described as unprecedented in American politics

However, seven of the sources for unprecedented are not the media but academics (so academics should be reflected): Carole McGranahan / "historians" / Michael R. Beschloss / "White House scholars and other students of government" and George Edwards / Douglas Brinkley / Heidi Taksdal Skjeseth / Donnel Stern - starship.paint (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: No, I can't agree to that. Making it sound as if it is only the media that finds Trump's statements to be false or misleading fits in with Trump's "fake news" narrative. It is important that the lead of the article informs readers, in no uncertain terms, that it is a fact that Trump tells lies on an unprecedented level. That's why it is important to note that a variety of academics and scholars, not just the media, have said this. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Those sentences are the result of extensive discussion earlier this year. That's enough consideration for awhile. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The content is fine, as is, but if any improvement were to be made, this would help:

• "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, the media, and academics, who have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics."BullRangifer (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  BR's version better reflects the sources and should be the article text as of now. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  @BullRangifer: - aren't fact-checkers part of the media? Anyway, check the sources in this article, no fact-checker says unprecedented starship.paint (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Here's one way to incorporate some of the above points & combine two sentences:

"During his career, campaign, and presidency, Trump has made many false or misleading statements, which have been debunked by fact-checkers and widely described by the media as unprecedented in American politics." UpdateNerd (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

unprecendented has to stay. starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) That drops the important point, arguably the most important point, that the phenomenon is widely described as unprecedented. This is clearly an important part of the existing consensus if you read that discussion.

This is why we avoid rehashing things that have already been thoroughly "hashed" not too long ago. We have been over all of this at length, and what we have is good enough that our time is better spent on things that need our attention more. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've re-added that above. I thought there was some dispute over whether our sources actually say "unprecedented", but the ones linked above clearly do. To be clear, my goal isn't to change the information but to combine two sentences into one in a long lead of a long article. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Arguably detrimental, as two shorter sentences are easier to read and comprehend than one long one. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case, I'd suggest we use a semi-colon instead of a period to make it more obvious that the two statements are part of one idea. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't the words "The statements" beginning the second sentence make that obvious enough? For me at least, the difference between a comma and a semicolon is a single pixel, and I'm afraid my vision isn't good enough to see one pixel clearly. So I would have to analyze context to determine that that comma is probably a semicolon. Again, we're rehashing something that – at best – doesn't really need rehashing. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Every other sentence in the paragraph is a separate idea. So randomly using two sentences near the end of the paragraph to explain a single idea is somewhat confusing upon the first read. Just a stylistic thing, but a semicolon could help. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I just disagree. As I just said, I believe that a semicolon could do more harm than good. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Or as Kurt Vonnegut said, "Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college." UpdateNerd (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I would disagree with Vonnegut. I think they serve a useful grammatical purpose in relatively rare situations. Sadly, the visual ambiguity thing makes me want to avoid their use whenever there is a reasonably acceptable alternative. I feel this is such a case. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. Leave it alone. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Request change to Current Consensus #35

Because this lead sentence:

Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.

wikilinks to the Veracity article, which shows extensive falsehoods during his business career, I request #35 and the lead be changed to:

Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his business career, campaign and presidency.

soibangla (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

This is an obvious improvement. Soibangla, please consider modifying this request to add the improvement offered by Bullrangifer, namely, to add "and academics" to the list of those who have identified falsehoods. Please see the recent history for the text.

To reiterate what I said in my edit summary restoring Soibangla's improvement: We are not obligated to keep the "consensus" from the list when an uncontroversial improvement is offered. The consensus list merely allows for other versions to be reverted ad libitum and obviously should only be used when there is some objection to the newer version. The assertion that it is a newer version, i.e. deviates from what's in the list, is not a substantive reason to reject the new version where it improves the text. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You are presenting your opinion, that something "obviously" improves the article, as fact. That's the fatal flaw in your reasoning. Only consensus can decide whether something improves the article. If the improvement is "obvious", new consensus is fairly easy and straightforward. The corollary: If new consensus is not fairly easy and straightforward, the improvement was not "obvious" after all. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss, the 1RR exemption you refer to in this edit summary is valid and is listed in the fine print, collapsed at the bottom of the sanctions template. ~Awilley (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding "career", but might be superfluous, since the last couple of decades seem to have been in preparation for his campaigning for president. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm fairly neutral to this change; however, I would argue that the notable part of his mendacity is that he has lied to the American people as a politician at an unprecedented level. The fact that he lied as a businessman is less notable and less well documented, and so an argument could be made that the sentence should remain as it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO and Soibangla: Please do not implement changes to consensus material while it is still being discussed at the talk page. IIRC both of you have done this before. This page is under restrictions for a reason. It has a list of agreed-upon consensus wording for a reason. Just because you think something is a good idea does not trump previous consensus - and does not empower you to go ahead and unilaterally put in your preferred “improvement”. Discussion here at the talk page will determine whether these items can be changed. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Awilley has called our attention to these particulars in the sanctions notice here:

• Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
• Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Please cite where I have "implement[ed] changes to consensus material while it is still being discussed at the talk page." As has been noted by others before, editors cannot be expected to be aware of every Talk discussion that has ever transpired. soibangla (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I believe that is not what the 1RR exemption says and I believe that is not in the spirit of the new 24-hour BRD that replaced "consensus required". In a nutshell, I believe that while the exemption gives any editor the right to revert to an enumerated consensus, it does not require that. So under the new 24-hour BRD an uncontroversial edit to a consensus item can be made. Then if anyone disagrees strongly enough to revert that edit, discussion can occur on the talk page. I'll also note on this page that the editor who reverted the improvements did not offer any substantive objection, but only wished to assert his view as to the "letter of the law", which view (I believe) was mistaken. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Another proposal

My own opinion: I would not add "and business career" because the intense coverage of his falsehoods - and the heavy attention by fact checkers - has been only during his campaign and presidency. Sure, he told a lot of lies as a businessman, but that's not unprecedented. And it did not become an important part of his public image until his campaign and presidency. I would add "and academics" to the sources testifying to this situation. I would be careful to word the sentence so as to make it clear which sources are doing the debunking (mainly fact checkers) and which are evaluating the situation as unprecedented (media and academics but not fact checkers). -- MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:UpdateNerd made a proposal above which comes very close to what I am suggesting: During his career, campaign, and presidency, Trump has made many false or misleading statements, which have been debunked by fact-checkers and widely described by the media as unprecedented in American politics. Make it “the media and academics” and I fully support this proposal. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

So to make my proposal clear, it is During his career, campaign and presidency, Trump has made many false or misleading statements, which have been debunked by fact-checkers and widely described by the media and academics as unprecedented in American politics. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

More NPOV to eliminate the last part,and widely described by the media and academics as unprecedented in American politics.--MONGO (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. Trump is responsible for the rise of independent fact checkers as a prominent voice in political discourse. Guy (help!) 16:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact checkers were not held at gunpoint to check facts. That every obviously ridiculous boast, campaign bloviation and fantastical and overt redirection has been lumped in with obvious lies is telling.--MONGO (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Trump lies more than any other politician (academics say so). the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented This itself has contributed to the coverage. No violation at NPOV, we use attribution. starship.paint (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope. We’ve shown “lie” as avoided by RS before, so that assertion is factually not V acceptable content. The ‘frequency, degree’ etcetera looks familiar but not seeing it in section 6.3 — is that a quote of just one person with some particular importance? Doesn’t seem like factually correct, easy enough to think of whoppers larger in degree or impact than anything dinged to Trump. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That's just one particular academic source, they are more. Let me know when you start bringing sources to the table (to advocate for the removal of widely described by the media and academics as unprecedented in American politics) rather than just assertions. starship.paint (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

it did not become an important part of his public image until his campaign and presidency The Veracity article shows otherwise. That his public profile was elevated by his candidacy does not detract from that. He was a nationally-known figure before 2015.soibangla (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• User:MelanieN Oppose changing. First, the sentence as written is “in American politics” - speaking about his 1990s business as “unprecedented in American politics” neither makes sense nor is it supported by V. Second, Consensus #35 is already showing five discussions and nothing seems changed, certainly nothing is stating the proposal based WP:LEAD on body content changes. Third, the vast bulk of coverage begins in 2016 as mentioned and wrapped up in partisan politics and fake news or playing to niche audiences - just factually the business had no part in the fact-counts and such so it’s misleading to conflate them. This all seems just somebody having a whim without much thought. Please don’t encourage making #ed consensus, lead, or debates run on whims. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose change – Too much detail for the lead. If anything, this convoluted phrasing about fact-checkers and "unprecedented" stuff should be made shorter, not longer. — JFG ^talk 12:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Our lead currently says "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." My proposed change says the same thing, only shorter and less convoluted: "During his campaign and presidency, Trump has made many false or misleading statements, which have been debunked by fact-checkers and widely described by the media and academics as unprecedented in American politics." One sentence, and “academics” added. (I see I had mistakenly included “career” which I actually do not think should be here. My apologies; I have struck it.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the man, not just the president. His falsehoods during his long business career, when he was a nationally-known figure, as documented in Veracity, which the sentence wikilinks to, should be included. soibangla (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that his falsehoods during his business career may not have been too far out of the norm for business people. I don't see any media or academic sources saying that the dishonesty of Private Citizen Trump was unprecedented. It is the unprecedented nature of his dishonesty as a politician and president that makes this lead-worthy. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Many of his business career falsehoods have been critiqued. People who worked for/with him have called him a fabulist since he first splashed onto the New York scene. He’s caused much eye-rolling for decades. He’s notorious. Read Veracity. soibangla (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. As of the erection of Trump Tower, with Trump's destruction of artifacts he'd pledged to preserve, Trump was characterized as a liar in the mainstream press. We're talking nearly 40 years ago. Anyway, here on WP we value our readers who are truth-telling business people, so when we write about the rare businessman who is less truthful, we should make the distinction. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: No offense meant, but your proposed change is still quite convoluted and (in my opinion) overly detailed for the lead section. I'd suggest something sharper like Fact-checkers have determined that Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaign and presidency., but I'm afraid that would require yet another RfC, and we're going through RfC fatigue here… — JFG ^talk 20:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That would fail an RfC or even an informal discussion. There is too much of a consensus here that it needs to be pointed out, in the lead, that his dishonesty is unprecedented. Otherwise it immediately invites the rebuttal "well, all politicians lie." But he is unique. NO politicians, at least in modern American experience, lie like Trump. Not even close. As for the various proposals to reword this, it is clear none of them has consensus and we might as well move on to other things. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If "unprecedented" must be there, we could say this: Fact-checkers have determined that Trump has made an unprecedented number of false and misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. — JFG ^talk 23:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No, that doesn't work. The fact-checkers just determine whether a statement is true or false; they don't generalize. It's the media and academics that say, whoa, this is unprecedented! -- MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree. And worse, it insinuates that it's just these "factcheckers, compound operatives akin to "streetsweepers" or Fuddruckers, who have a problem with his statements. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Duh, yeah, let's move on. — JFG ^talk 00:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Only two days wasted. Not too bad this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: An unprecedented amount of laughing occurred when I read that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Exercise, take 3?

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.

---

Somehow in the last RFC about this, 27 !votes got morphed into ‘consensus’ #40 to include a remark about “batteries” that only 7 of the 24 spoke for. This tossed both the User:JFG option that was the prior leader, and the User:Mandruss initial ‘no consensus’ conclusion.

I know it’s not a vote, but I’m not seeing “general consensus to include option D”. I’m wondering if there actually is definite consensus *against* this line.

So ... for the circa three-quarters who did not ask for this “batteries” phrase, are you opposed to that ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Obviously, I was “Option B” and willing to go option C (nothing), and feel no consensus for adding “batteries”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - I undid your redirect to ‘how to challenge closing’ as not helping my seeking the view of !optionD folks. It’s not at the point of a challenge, it’s a discussion. (If it seems #40 closure is a heartache, it may be another like consensus #39... but at the moment it is a question to see if participants of the event actually are opposed to D or not.). I will presume lack of your own views on the question as a ‘didn’t say D but no objection’, feel free to say here if instead you meant you want this challenged or something else. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: There is a reason that the guidance does not include going back to the participants to ask for opinions about a closure. The reason is the same as the reason why we have uninvolved closers – what would be the point of having an uninvolved closer if the closure must meet the approval of involved editors? Your actions are improper and I'll ask that another editor revert your revert of the close of this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - whether it fits WP:CONSENSUS or is an issue is only available from asking participants. The change to a closure you are pointing at mentions “multiple editors asking”... which *is* talking of participants opinion. This was just a weird way to close, so I am asking. (As a sidebar, procedurally if closure could fix the editing malf of no separate closure sidebar statement, the close instead overwrote the rfc lead would also be nice.) While I am dubious that the close is a reasonable summation of the discussion (e.g. multiple editors wanting shorter) or that option B plus A plus batteries increased acceptability to more than option B alone, the only way to know is to ask participants. Or else just skip to #36 approach of wait a month for yet again it is RFC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The change to a closure you are pointing at mentions “multiple editors asking” - That refers to early close, linking to Wikipedia:Snowball clause. This was not a case of SNOW. Please read the guidance more carefully before citing it.

whether it fits WP:CONSENSUS or is an issue is only available from asking participants. - Absolutely false. When there is a closer, consensus is assessed by the closer, not the participants.

That's where I stopped reading. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Closed again at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 12 September 2019 (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.

@Markbassett: I'd advise you to open a separate thread if you want to discuss the appropriateness of quoting Trump's "body is like a battery" remark. Re-hashing the closed RfC is counter-productive, but a tweak to the current text may be discussed separately. — JFG ^talk 09:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Height listed is incorrect

Under "Health and lifestyle" wiki states although at 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m) and 243 lb this is incorrect, and must be edited to 6'2" 1.8796 meters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.201.152.70 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a source for this data. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

To my surprise, [2] [3] [4]. It looks as if the height is keeping pace with the weight in recent years. I would say that the 6'3", like the "co-authored books" thing, is an extraordinary claim from non-independent sources and should be treated accordingly. It's been about 30 months since we discussed these "medical reports" and I suspect that some of the editors who previously took them at face value may have revised their opinions. So it's at least worth hearing what others thing should be done about IP's request. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The taller height may be his from an earlier age. People do shrink as they age. Has he made any recent claims?--MONGO (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

So to stay ahead of the curve, maybe 6'1" for shrinkage? He was at Obama's 6'2" 3 years ago. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I just read that Obama was 6'1". Unless we get some official updated height from a medical exam tabloid speculations should be avoided. Apparently based on his advertised weight, the difference of one inch extra in height (6'3" instead of 6'2") makes him overweight instead of obese.--MONGO (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

So ignoring any shrinkage in office that would put Trump's true height at 6'1", not adjusted for elevator shoes or hair mass. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Are we really discussing this? Duh — JFG ^talk 09:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)