Talk:Donald Trump

Open RfCs and surveys

• #RfC about birther claim
• #Should we mention the Forbes 400 tapes in the 'wealth' section of the article?

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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

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)

RfC about birther claim

Should the paragraph (or any mention) about the Obama "birther" conspiracy theory be included:

• A. where it is now, subsection Racial views in the "Public profile" section;
• B. a new subsection Birther claims in the "Public profile" section;
• C. not included in this article at all but in the Donald Trump presidential campaign when the rumor was being circulated.

Note: Please do not clutter the Survey section with lengthy comments - use the Threaded discussion section. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding another option which has already gained support from three editors. — JFG ^talk 10:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• D. Move the paragraph back to "Political career and affiliations up to 2015"

Survey on birtherism

• D C - it was a campaign conspiracy theory. Trump eventually acknowledged in a statement dated 9/15/2016 that Obama was born in the US. Politifact published the Trump campaign statement, and also showed how the rumor began in connection with the 2008 Clinton campaign regarding Clinton aide, Mark Penn, who sent then-Senator Clinton a 2007 strategy memo advising the pointing out of Obama’s "lack of American roots", but there is no evidence that ^{Penn said anything about Obama's birthplace, or that} Clinton or the 2008 campaign took Penn's advice. ^{In fact, there is nothing in 2007 strategy memo that mentions Obama's birthplace or that he was not born in the US. 22:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)} There was also a chain of emails by Clinton supporters ^{that may have started the rumor. 22:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC) The Telegraph presents more detail.22:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Atsme📞📧} 03:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC) ^{Clarification made 17:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)}
• D - it was a campaign conspiracy theory. Trump eventually acknowledged in a statement dated 9/15/2016 that Obama was born in the US. Politifact published the Trump campaign statement which linked to the 2007 strategy memo sent by Clinton aide Mark Penn to then-Senator Clinton advising the pointing out of Obama’s "lack of American roots”. There is no mention about Obama's birthplace in the memo. There is no evidence that Clinton or the 2008 campaign took Penn's advice; however, there was a chain of emails being circulated by Clinton supporters that may have started the rumor. The Telegraph published more details. ^{Corrections to more closely represent the sources and for further clarification of where the rumors began. Atsme📞📧} 22:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Since it appears that Atsme is not going to correct the misrepresentation in the above comment - "showed how the rumor began in connection with the 2008 Clinton campaign regarding Clinton aide, Mark Penn, who sent then-Senator Clinton a 2007 strategy memo advising the pointing out of Obama’s "lack of American roots" - I advise people to read the Politifact link she supplies, which shows that the Mark Penn memo did not mention or even hint at anything about Obama’s birthplace, and actually advised the campaign to emphasize Hillary’s “American-ness” but say nothing about Obama’s background. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Better yet, Melanie...The Telegraph provided a bit more detail regarding the chain emails, and the actions that followed, including the statement: ...but supporters of Hillary Clinton, now Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, are largely to blame for starting it. With regards to the 2016 Trump statement, perhaps you know what was meant by "Clinton campaign"? Does it refer to Clinton supporters, delegates, DNC staff, campaign staff, Clinton aides, or what? Sources say it was supporters of Hillary Clinton, so it's best to simply say what the sources say. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• A Birtherism was an inherently and intrinsically racist attack upon Obama at the time, this is borne out by sources I provided in the preceding section. The filer of this discussion is also pushing the fraudulent "Hillary started it!" position, a ridiculous canard that has been debunked and deflated as countless other right-wing conspiracy theories have been, from Pizzagate to Seth Rich's murder. His POV push at the birtherism article has already been reverted. Readers, note that Atsme's attempted edit over there begins with "On September 15, 2016..." for this false claim that Trump has "accepted" Obama's actual place of birth, but sources report that Donald Trump continueed to question the former president's place of birth as recently as the Fall of 2017. TheValeyard (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• Not C. It wasn't a campaign gimmick; Trump started that nonsense in 2011 (according to our article). Drmies (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• D: Move to 'Political career and affiliations up to 2015.' The significance of the birther stuff isn't a racial connection, even if there is one; the significance is that it launched Trump's political career. As such, it belongs in a history section, not in a political views section. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• B (keep, move to new section) B or D (keep but not under the rubric of "racism)". That Trump publicly questioned Obama's country of birth—and therefore whether he was qualified under the Constitution to be a president—is noteworthy and should be covered in an encyclopedic fashion. It should not, in my opinion, be located under the rubric of Racial views any more so than the birther claims over John McCain (article link to The Washington Post) when he was running for office. Greg L (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Greg L: Given some of your other comments, it seems that you only want this material out of the "Racial views" header. Does that mean you would support option D as well as B? (Option D had not yet been formulated when you first !voted.) — JFG ^talk 01:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Yes. I've struck and revised accordingly. Thanks for pointing out the new option. Greg L (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• D: Move to 'Political career and affiliations up to 2015' which is where it was last time I read this article. His birther comments in 2011 were the most important part of his political life until he officially announced his candidacy in 2015.LM2000 (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• D: move the paragraph where it was originally – Indeed the "birther" story contributed to launching Trump on the political scene. He even acknowledged as much by saying "I believe it made me very popular". Nothing to do with racism, as Trump used similar lines of attack against white candidates John McCain born in Panama and Ted Cruz born in Canada. — JFG ^talk 10:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• A, not C per TheValeyard, and Drmies.- MrX 🖋 10:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• A: When you insist that someone is not American, you are saying they are a foreigner. An "other". Not one of "us". This was racism, and was consciously pandering to the racists in society. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

By that logic, Trump also insisted that the very white and Christian John McCain and Ted Cruz were "not one of us" foreigners, and therefore that was racist?? — JFG ^talk 11:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear the relevance of this comment. There's nothing wrong with the tag "racist" for any of these insinuations. We already know that "racist" has no rigorous definition, certainly not in ordinary language on WP. It is used just as @HiLo48: says, to point to "others". So yes, the insinuations about McCain and certainly Cruz, and maybe even Mittens' Mexican refugee dad can meaningfully be called "racist". We are not writing as anthropologists or sociologists. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Read my FULL comment. (Something fascinating about Trump fans is that they believe and claim he is smart, but won't concede he's smart enough to make the racists think he is on their side. Politics is complicated at times.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I did read your full comment, and mentioned a valid comparison using your line of reasoning. How can you ascribe racism to Obama birtherism and not to Cruz or McCain birtherism? Oh, because Obama is half-black? That sounds like a racist attitude. — JFG ^talk 11:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you truly believe Trump had no idea of the racist implications of what he was doing? HiLo48 (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that Trump probably "made the racists think he is on their side", just like Clinton probably tried to prove to black citizens that she was on their side, by claiming she carried hot sauce in her purse; anything goes to win the presidency I guess. — JFG ^talk 11:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• A, not C - Only a racist would push this kind of conspiracy bullshit, and only the worst kind of racist would actually spend substantial money funding activities to keep it in the headlines, as Trump did. For several years before there was any kind of campaign announcement, Trump was basking in the publicity of his racist birther activities. Only later, once he'd established a barbarian horde of racist deplorables, did he announce his intention to seek the presidency. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

My oh my, "barbarian deplorables" within the citizenry, isn't that a racist thing to say? — JFG ^talk 11:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"Deplorables" is a race? Did, not, know, that. - MrX 🖋 11:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

As much a race as Muslims, I suppose. — JFG ^talk 11:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Islam feelings ARE a form of racism. Folks aren't worried about Muslims they don't know are Muslims. They worry about those who look different. Who have darker skin. Who speak English differently. Who wear different clothes. Who have a different god. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not? Human is a race...so is Nascar. Pile it on! 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We should not forget Muslim support of Trump.[1][2][3][4][5] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• B or D - I've yet to see significant evidence, let alone convincing evidence, that this belongs in a section that, per its heading and its hatnote {{Main|Racial views of Donald Trump}}, is about Trump's racial views. The little actual evidence presented to date has been Atsme, in Threaded discussion, pretty much shooting down in flames many of the sources used there. If Trump cynically and shrewdly exploits American racism for political gain, that doesn't make birtherism a Trump "racial view". Only a racist would push this kind of conspiracy bullshit is simply false. Not C because this passes WEIGHT for his BLP. I will monitor developments as this RfC progresses and my !vote is changeable by evidence. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• A, not C - Whether Trump is a racist or cynically used the racism of others for his own ends is unimportant in my mind. That is, whether he himself is a racist, or it is his racial view that race-baiting is an acceptable tool; this belongs in a section on race. (And the section title can be tuned if it still bothers.) This began long before his official campaign, and was clearly an appeal to racism, as widely covered in RS. O3000 (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  This is the wrong time to offer to "tune" the heading, don't you think? We're not going to add options E, F, and G for heading changes and expect any consensus out of this. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I really see no need for tuning. O3000 (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• C - It was politics, sneaky politics, and it worked because he's president. They say if he attacks Obama it's racist, if he attacks Clinton it's misogynist. Almost as if intentionally the only person you can attacks is a white man. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC) — 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Not A, not C, give it a mention in "Racial views". Well maybe it was both his personal and his campaign's rhetoric, don't you think? wumbolo ^^^ 13:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• A and B not-C not-D C and D would bury this, which was one of Trump's flagship public narratives, aggressively promoted and not mere political or campaign goop. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• B or D. Absolutely not C; the birther stuff was a very prominent feature of his political activity and a main reason for his rise to prominence, and must be in this bio somewhere. I prefer B over D because he was a loud birther both before and after 2015. I agree with moving it out of A, because I can understand how some people would think listing it under “Racial views” implies that he was a birther for racial rather than political reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think this is a strained distinction -- political vs. racial reasons. Few racists base their feelings on any systematic set of beliefs. If one promotes or tolerates racist speech or actions, then there you are. We have no window into folks' "reasons" for or about things. Characterizing individuals on the basis of their association with a group, belief, nationality... is commonly tagged "racist" even though none of those has a simple or entirely robust definition.
• And check this out. It wasn't much of an issue until the mainstream started to worry about it. [6] SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• D as per above comments by other editors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• B then A, definitely not C – Birtherism absolutely belongs in this article, as it was central to Trump's rise as a political figure. There's enough there for it to be a stand-alone subsection, and it's a prominent enough part of his biography to merit one. But if it doesn't get its own subsection, “Racial views” makes the most sense, since it's a racist conspiracy theory, but I think there should be at least a one-sentence mention of it in the “Political career and affiliations up to 2015” section due to the role it played in his political career. -- irn (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• D. Including birtherism in "racial views" is disputable and not directly connected to race. Also, birtherism is a significant part of what brought Trump to political relevance, so placing it in his pre-2015 political career makes sense. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment A great deal of the discussion here focuses on whether Trump's 'fueling' of the birther conspiracy was indicative of Trump holding inherently racist views, or was simply opportunism on his part (essentially the A or D choice). However, most if not all of the 'racial views' section is actually "accusations of racism" - whether of personally holding racist views, or simply exploiting racism for commercial or political benefit is both unclear and largely academic in most instances in the section. I believe the section should be retitled to reflect the actual content (that Trump has been accused of racist actions and of making racially inflamatory comments, and/or endorsing racist positions), we don't know what his 'views' are, we do know how his deeds and words have been perceived. Within such a shift of section title, the material could be included in A, with text that supports that his contribution to the whole 'birther' issue was seen as fueling/pandering to racism. Though on balance, I think the content should be in D, since the significance of Trump's role is the prominence it gave to him as a populist political commentator. FWIW, I find it impossible to think of any reason why this conspiracy theory 'ran and ran', other than that Obama had a black Kenyan father and a 'funny name', and that Trump was content to 'run with it'. Pincrete (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• D: Move to 'Political career and affiliations up to 2015 - The mentions from the 2008 Clinton supporters were taken up by the right after the election -- and Trump was not prominant in this until about 2011. It is not literally racist but rather political, and ties to racism seem POV or posturing political assertions. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• D Where it belongs. That is the context in which RS describe it. (Summoned by bot) Y'all be pinging me as I am not following this and will not see any replies. Also, I do not mind in the slightest being pinged for this matter. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• A: the false claims about Obama's birthplace are absolutely racially motivated. They differ from those of Cruz being born in Canada because (a) that is true (though Trump's conclusions about Cruz's presidential ineligibility were not) and (b) they were made during a political campaign against Cruz, whereas the Obama comments were not for personal gain, carried on for 5 years and had a very racist subtext behind them. (On a related matter, there seem to be quite different details about this topic at Donald Trump, Racial views of Donald Trump and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Donald Trump—I think for due weight, we should have a paragraph or so here, a couple of paragraphs at the Obama article and the topic in full detail under the "Racial views" article.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Bilorv, with regard to your apparent statement of fact, (the false claims about Obama's birthplace are absolutely racially motivated), gosh, I wasn't aware that the weight of reliable sources state that as fact. This surprises me, since I've long held open the strong possibility that the attack on Obama, along with “Lock her up” on Hillary and Trump’s “he doesn’t have much energy,” attack on one of his white male opponents during the primary might all be politically motivated. Please cite the appropriate RSs and I’m rather confident this encyclopedia article will go with that flow. Going with the weight of the RSs: It’s what Wikipedia does. Greg L (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• D per User:DrFleischman. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• A/B and definitely not C/D. Per Drmies, TheValeyard, et al. Parabolist (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• A (first choice) or B (second choice). Obvious reasons are obvious. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• A, or, failing that, B. Most modern coverage places it in the context of his racial views. Strong oppose to C and D; C is clearly unworkable because he was advocating it long before the campaign, and D is unworkable because the extensive coverage since then means that it has remained a core part of how his racial views are seen and interpreted by reliable sources.

--Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• C Does not need to be mentioned in this article. It was a campaign gimmick. Any comments made prior weren't notable by the mainstream. This is an encyclopedia, not a court report. Every thing the man ever said is not relevant to this biography. Sovietmessiah (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we omit a lot of what he says, but racism is an issue that should never be ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• D it may have been a political gimmick, but it was a high-profile political one, largely before his campaign started. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• A (and then in order of first preference B and then D -- C completely inappropriate). (Summoned by bot) First off, I think it should be pointed out that the proposition that this fact should appear either in this article or the 2016 campaign article is a classic false choice; both policy and basic common sense dictate that discussion of this topic be included in both articles. Trump was, for more than half of Obama's presidency, one of the most vocal and devoted (and certainly most high profile) proponents of this conspiracy theory, and there are mounds of sources (primary and secondary) which regard it as the foundation stone of his efforts to reinvigorate his previously lackluster political career. And that's how we adduce what gets included on this project and where: by a WP:NEUTRAL presentation of topics, per their WP:WEIGHT in reliable sources--not our own idiosyncratic assessments of importance of the topic matter, which I am seeing a lot of above. This piece of political history is certainly more germane to this article than the campaign article, but it truly belongs in both.

Turning to the issue of where to include the material in this article, I like it where it is. No matter how you slice it, the conspiracy theory was, by its nature, a racial issue. Even if we contort ourselves to try to analyze the assertions made by Trump and other "birthers" in such a a way as to make it not at all about race (and that requires some real rationalization work), it is still about race as matter of encyclopedic coverage by virtue of how the claims were received, embraced, rejected, or interpreted at large within American society (and beyond), as covered in reliable sources. So again, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT. That leans me towards option A. Option B would be fine, though it probably raises the profile of the birther claims a little and would encourage further development of discussion of those claims here. Arguably that is appropriate, but I think its a fair trade-off to have a more constrained paragraph in the racial views section, because it provides better contextualization of the topic matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• A, not C per TheValeyard, and Drmies.Casprings (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

RS refer to it as the birther conspiracy theories. Op-ed try to conflate it with racism, and do a bad job of it. Our own WP article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories states "A number of political commentators have characterized these various claims as a racist reaction..." The sources cited in this article either (a) do not support the claim that questioning Obama's place of birth is the result of Trump's racist view, or (b) that it's racial paranoia to support the birther claim and that the claim is tinged with racism. The ones I checked refer to it as Trump promoting the birther conspiracy theory. I checked the following cited sources:

FN269 CNN reports that Trump admits Obama was born in the US. The only mention of the word racist was in a tweet by Hillary Clinton. Trump's name was not included in that tweet, but it was implied.

FN270 ABC News - no mention of racist or racism - Trump acknowledged Obama was born in US - focus was that Trump had fueled conspiracy theories;

FN271 NYTimes - conspiracy theory - said Trump was suspicious Obama may have been born outside US - nothing about racism;

FN272 NYTimes - conspiracy theory - acknowledged Obama born in US, said Trump blamed Clinton for raising question in first place;

FN273 Fact Check - conspiracy theory - no mention of racism;

FN274 CNN - birth certificate missing - no mention of racism;

I'm not going to list all the sources - I've proven my point. I am truly disappointed in the way this whole birther has been handled. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: All FN's (footnote or citation numbers) above are as of this revision, and may have changed due to addition or removal of citations above that point in the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Atsme, there's better sourcing available than newspaper articles (though the first hits in this batch from the NYT are telling). Here's an RS that says "Many scholars believe that racial prejudice etc." Then there's Cha-Jua, Sundiata Keita (2010). "Obama, the Rise of the Hard Right, Arizona and Texas, and the Attack on Racilized Communities Studies". The Black Scholar. 40 (4): 2–6., and this: Gotanda, Neil (2011). "The Racialization of Islam in American Law". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 637: 184–95.--"The birther movement and the effort to label Obama as a Muslim should be seen as a racial campaign rather than a puzzling outlier movement of Obama-haters. The racial campaign seeks to assign Obama to the Muslim racial category and leave him open to being racially profiled as a "Muslim terrorist". There's plenty more. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Should be seen? And then the author goes on to provide his opinion for why we must see things his way? The majority rejects that notion, Drmies. See the polling results since they seem to play such an important role in Trump articles. Question - while you were searching for academic works that fit the racial narrative, did you search for the opposite narrative? The attempt to ascribe every single problem in the world to race, including terrorism, poverty, white privilege, politics, and on and on, may sell books and increase baitclick revenue but we have to ask ourselves how we measure the influence of race, and where does it end? Far more sources support the bc conspiracy theory than the racism idea because the former boosted political advantage. Our Constitutional requirement that a US president must be a "natural born citizen" has nothing to do with race. Worse yet, blaming racism (and even sexism) on everything demeans the real struggle, especially when used as a political tool. If any of it were true, President Obama would never have been elected and he certainly would not have served two terms. Also keep in mind that as of 2018, whites are still the racial majority in the US whereas blacks comprise 12% of the population. Think about that for a minute. I am hard pressed to believe his election was the result of white racists voting for him but that's what it appears some of these studies are trying to portray - I attribute most to a misunderstanding of what keeps the heart of America beating...not unlike what Richard Rorty predicted in his book, Achieving our Country (1998). I'm not denying there's widespread belief (mostly by liberal thinkers on both sides of the isle) that everything Trump does is racially motivated despite his denials. The bottomline is still the fact that the birther conspiracy theory became an issue in the election, Trump asked questions, he got the answers that satisfied his curiosity and he changed his position about the bc. I don't, and probably never will, understand why there is such an all-out attempt to conflate the qualifications for president (must be natural born) with racism. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like you've strayed into the OR thicket on this one, Atsme. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Ouch, ouch, ouch...day-em thorns! [Pause] Much better. Wait-a-minuet. This is a TP where we discuss things. Hallelujah! The OR thicket magically disappeared. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• User:Atsme, can you drop this ridiculous nonsense about "opinion"? "Should be seen" isn't an "opinion" in the way that what you seem to think is an opinion. This is someone who did some serious research. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is reliable. It has weight. Your opinion on it has--sorry--no weight at all, because you seem incapable of understanding that not all opinions are the same. Your lack of understanding of how reliable sources work is evidenced on Melanie's talk page, where I am about to comment on another rather silly comment you made. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Drmies, I am trying to understand your perspective and hope you will try to understand mine - after all, different views are what make WP what it is, and it is through these discussions that we eventually get the article right (apologies for preaching to the choir). My focus is more on layout (where the material fits best, rather than what the material says), providing all prominent views per NPOV, and getting the article right. There actually are scholars who disagree with the one you cited, including Vanderbilt professor Carol Swain, UT professor Daniel Bonevac, English professor Mark Bauerlein at Emory, and quite a few investigative reporters like Anthony Gockowski who writes for Campus Reform. While their views contradict what appears to be the prevailing view in the US according to the media and many in academia, we must not lose sight of the fact that similar thinking prevailed in the 2016 election, and look what happened. Quite frankly, we have a healthy number of editors who support the same principals and ideologies as you - and that's wonderful - but that view is contradicted by other views that are held by notable scholars, many of whom are not as vocal (for obvious reasons). Ok, so I grabbed the crappy end of the stick which forces me to wear flame-retardant underwear in an effort to maintain some sense of balance while adhering to NPOV - hey, somebody has to do it - so please be patient and at least try to understand that I approach ALL articles as I would if I was reviewing a GA or FA candidate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Opinions from professors, mostly with irrelevant degrees != scholarly - they may be scholars but that's irrelevant if they're speaking on things they're not an expert on; and their opinions shouldn't even be spoken in the same breath as peer-reviewed work by experts Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme this is not about "different views". This isn't Crossfire or a debate club. What you are presenting is, as Galobtter pointed out, a false equivalency, as if every opinion is equal. An opinion expressed on PragerU isn't worth as much as an argument presented in an academic, peer-reviewed journal article. By the same token, this has nothing to do with my political principles or ideologies, and it shouldn't have anything to do with yours. The operative principle here is RS, and coordinating considerations come from UNDUE and from well-reasoned arguments for or against certain kinds of sources. I don't cite any blogs, neither left or right. I don't pluck someone's opinion off the internet or from some ideological think-tank, and if I do that person better be relevant and have some authority to speak on the subject. Surely you saw me point to books and journal articles, not even to newspapers. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Drmies I disagree that it is "false equivalency", rather it is WP:YESPOV (my bold underline): Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. You already know what constitutes RS - and it's wonderful that you cited academic sources - but let's not forget, Trump has only been in office a little over a year. We can go back in time before he was a presidential candidate, and you'd be hard pressed to find "multiple" RS referring to him as "racist" prior to his presidential campaign; however, if you can prove me wrong (substantially), I will enter into WP servitude for an entire 2 weeks of serial comma duty. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was hoping we could avoid at this RfC, which should be a simple discussion about where in the article to put the birtherism stuff. It's unquestionable that most of the impetus behind birtherism (a preposterous attempt to claim he was somehow born in Kenya even though his parents were living and attending school in Honolulu) was racial prejudice, an attempt to de-legitimize our first black president. However, that does not mean that Trump's own motivation for promoting it was racial; it's far more likely that he did it out of political opportunism, realizing that it gave him a lot of publicity and a strong support base (and not caring why those supporters were so enthused about the idea). So let's take as a given: saying he supported birtherism is not equivalent to saying he was a racist. That leaves us with a simple question of article content: where should we put the birtherism information? --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. @Atsme: re began in connection with the 2008 Clinton campaign, and also in a chain of emails by Clinton supporters.: Please strike "in connection with the Clinton campaign." Yes, there were emails on the subject among Clinton supporters - whether or not they originated the story or were repeating an earlier claim. There is no evidence at all that the claim originated with, or was promoted by, the Clinton campaign itelf. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I clarified to more closely reflect what Politifact and The Atlantic reported. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

See my comment at my talk page about your "clarification". --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - I fixed it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Melanie - it started before the 2008 Clinton campaign, but a couple of her campaign people and a volunteer and then her supporters after she did not get the nomination made it significant. Still small compared to when the conservatives got it, and not done by Clinton herself or part of the official positions but they still were a significant part of it's growth. Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for convenience

User:JFG, just to bring the discussion about Cruz and McCain down to the discussion area instead of up in the survey: You keep asking, how could birtherism be a racist thing when there were also doubts about Cruz's and McCain's citizenship? Several differences. First, there actually were valid reasons to doubt the "natural born citizenship" of Cruz and McCain, because Cruz actually was born in another country - Canada - and McCain was born in the Canal Zone. (And before them George Romney, born in Mexico to American parents, in his day a serious presidential candidate.) Second, the citizenship objections to Cruz and McCain were mainly academic and of interest only to political junkies; they didn't ever emerge in public as serious obstacles to their candidacies, much less become persistent and passionate mass beliefs. Why the differences, when there were actually valid reasons for doubting the eligibility of Cruz and McCain, and only fantasy theories for doubting Obama? I think it's pretty obvious why Obama was treated so differently. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If Trump has commented on Cruz or McCain we can mention that too. How could birtherism be racist though if Obamas brother supports while also supporting Trump is the real question [7]. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Good question, Emir. Just curious... ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC) ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Because some Blacks can be racists just like some Jewish people can be antisemitic? Pointing out that one, or several, people of a specific race or religion support a racist meme or conspiracy theory doesn't sanitize racism any more than a racist saying he has "black friends" makes that person not racist. Dave Dial (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing racist about his brother saying this. He is Kenyan. OF COURSE he would love to be able to say that his famous half-brother was born in Kenya. So would most Kenyans I suspect. --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe SPECIFICO refers to such comments as having "strayed into the OR thicket". ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Caught me. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I acknowledge the point you're making, and clearly the birth issue about Obama resonated a lot more with the public than similar disputes about other politicians. Does that mean that Trump jumped on this bandwagon because of his purported racial views? That is the question we are debating here, and I believe that his "equal-opportunity offending" stance weighs against a racist motive in his case. Just like when he lambasts Hillary Clinton, he is accused of being a misogynist, but when he rips Jeb Bush of Mitt Romney to shreds, that is just ordinary political banter? Sorry, that's biased reasoning. — JFG ^talk 05:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

There are two possibilities:

1. Trump attacked Obama by questioning his place of birth because he is a racist/xenophobe.
2. Trump attacked Obama by questioning his place of birth because he saw an opportunity to boost his profile by appealing to racists/xenophobes.

It doesn't matter which of these are true, because both are racially-motivated attacks. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey, if only life were this simplistic, like your analysis, unfortunately it isn't, so I must disagree with your assessment of only two possibilities. --Malerooster (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Not useful O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Scjessey, if only life were this simplistic, like you, unfortunately it isn't. --Malerooster (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC) How is this a useful edit? O3000 (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC) It's a personal attack—we don't get to call other editors "simplistic" (obviously meant "simple" or "simple-minded"). I was about to remove it per WP:RPA, but now I can't since you replied. Oh well. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC) @Mandruss, no, it just shows how unhelpful it is to post original research type of POV simplistic comments or arguments, thats all. --Malerooster (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC) I didn't even see this attack on me before it became a hatting edit war, but I'm delighted with the way it backfired. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC) It wasn't an attack, it was in response to your simplistic argument.--Malerooster (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC) @Malerooster: I don't know whether you really don't get it, you are unable to admit that you made a mistake, or you simply hope to save face by having the last word. It's not complicated—the two words like you made it about the editor, not the argument. I suggest you bear in mind that everything you post is part of the permanent record and stop creating fodder for an ANI complaint. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

JFG, I actually agree with you. I don't think Trump became a birther out of personal racism. I think he did it out of political opportunism. He saw that it got him lots of publicity and attracted an eager band of supporters, so he kept doing it and escalated it. The motivation of his supporters people who believed the birther theory was mostly racial (why else would they insist on believing in such a fantasy?), but IMO Trump didn't care as long as worked for him. That is why I have supported moving this out of the "Racial views" section into (preferably) a new subsection of its own or (possibly) a "campaign" section. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, note the title of the section where this material currently is: "Racial views". That would suggest that it is specifically about Trump's own racial views - not the racial views of his supporters. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"The motivation of his supporters was mostly racial..." Uhm, MelanieN, you might want to qualify that statement because the way it reads now, you're labeling nearly half of the American population as being racially motivated. Presidential candidates are typically highly scrutinized as were Romney, Cruz & Rubio regarding their place of birth. What race is Romney? The real motivation of the people (check the sources) was to drain the swamp of crooked, career politicians...but that got put on a back burner because the focus turned to the FBI, and now there's a demand for a second counsel to investigate that whole deal. Hold on to your wallet!! Voters wanted a nonpolitician, and I seriously doubt color mattered as long as the candidate said what the heart of America wanted to hear. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Atsme, putting your whole comment in small text makes it all but unreadable for a whole lot of editors here; therefore I have restored normal size. If you mean to keep things discreet, and possibly privately addressed to MelanieN, you can go to her talk page. As it stands, your comment is drifting into WP:FORUM territory. — JFG ^talk 23:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I meant to say that was the motivation of birther-believers, not of all his supporters. I have corrected it.--MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This goes beyond our mandate as editors -- we're not paid to say "he espoused racist views, but he did it only to please racists because it's not a good idea to call him a racist". JFG's telepathy helmet may be working just fine, but unless RS report as much, it can't be used. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: if you leave out "/xenophobe(s)". wumbolo ^^^ 16:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I disagree. If (1) is true, Trump is a explicitly a racist. If (2) is true, Trump is at least implicitly a racist because exploiting the racist views of others for personal gain is in itself a racist act, is it not? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Melanie. The birther paragraph simply does not belong in the "Racial views" section. The strongest evidence in multiple RS points to his concern over presidential qualifications (natural born citizen). In fact, President Obama himself, speaks about the bc issue. While there are some scholarly articles published in journals that attribute racism as the motivation, there are multiple RS that dispute it. I don't know of any RS that can say unequivocally that Trump's research into the bc was racially motivated. Let's move the paragraph to a relevant section (as noted in the RfC), and we can always consider adding a line or two with in-text attribution cited to a scholarly source indicating the belief that Trump's birther question was racially motivated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

exploiting the racist views of others for personal gain is in itself a racist act, is it not? It is not. It is shrewd, cynical, opportunistic politics. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think they are mutually exclusive. The Southern strategy was a means of securing votes, but was inherently racist as it stoked the beliefs and prejudices of white southerners. TheValeyard (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an unsupported opinion, like everything else in this debate including my own. Even if "true", it wouldn't warrant placement of birtherism in a section of Trump's BLP titled "Racial views". ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

We are talking about his VIEWS; that's what the section is called. If he exploited the racist views of others, that is cynicism, not personal racism. Or to be more precise, since there was obviously a strong political motivation for him to do so, we have no way of telling if he was also motivated by racism or not. Similarly, he accepts the support of white nationalists and tries to avoid criticizing them, but that does not make him a white nationalist. A politician needs to accept support where they can find it; that often means accepting the support of people with whom they strongly disagree. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence he strongly disagrees? What makes you think he does? HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

There is precious little "evidence" on either side of this debate. Where's yours? Melanie's comment is loaded with reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

While I may not always agree with MelanieN, I do agree that her comments are customarily "loaded with reasoning" as Mandruss pointed out. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Atsme; The birther paragraph simply does not belong in the "Racial views" section.

There is no clear-cut consensus when looking towards the RSs on this one.

Nor can we debate Trump's motives and what we believe had to be on his mind, and establish our own editorial policy. Why? Because as ad hoc all-volunteer amateur authors (wikipedians), that would be original research and we mustn't pretend we are qualified to depart from RSs and forge our own unique take on the matter.

McCain's Constitutional qualifications to be president was raised by his detractors but gained zero traction from the mainstream media (article link to The Washington Post) so the issue was dropped. Some have written here that Trump can't do the same thing to Obama that was done to McCain and raise the Birther issue because Obama is Black—and that fact couldn't have been lost on Trump—so it must be racist. Such arguments are a classic example of a person's race becoming an issue because some people want to make it an issue.

Absent a clear picture from a good majority of reliable sources, we have no business running off on our own declaring the “Birther = racism.” Greg L (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps birther ≅ racism or birther ⊆ racism. We often have a problem with terms related to racism as the area is broader than most think. I don’t think we would have any difficulty finding many RS that consider birtherism related to racism. O3000 (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If the preponderance of the RSs say so, then we should follow, Objective300. It will be interesting to see how such RSs authoritatively explain how John McCain can claim those old birther objections over his running for office were racially motivated. Greg L (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

There was never a claim that McCain lied about his birthplace. Only a false claim that it mattered that quickly died out. The claims that Obama was born in Kenya lasted for a decade, was believed by tens of millions, and included that he lied about both his birthplace and religion. It still hasn’t died out, with Arpaio saying he will call for an investigation when he becomes Senator. O3000 (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh. I didn’t know Arpaio's two cents and those of people other than Trump ought to influence Wikipedia's take on the matter while we try to establish a logical, unbiased, fair, encyclopedic treatment on the subject. Such endeavors normally call for merely looking towards the weight of truly reliable RSs for guidance. If I understand you correctly now with your 11:40, 9 April 2018 post, Objective3000…

You seem to be saying that if politicians, who since Roman times dug up dirt on anything regarding their opponents, claim that someone wasn't a natural-born citizen because they were born in Panama—and that much is true and the opponent identifies as White—then that's *not* racist; and if a political opponent claims their opponent was born in Kenya, which is false, and the opponent identifies as Black, then that's racist. I'm not so sure about that, and here's why…

When logic and points such as yours are allowed to be introduced into this discussion, it necessarily introduces bias; like when Trump said “Lock her up” over the mishandling of classified materials. Amongst his detractors, he must have been—and still is—a misogynist to utter such words. This is why we look towards the weight of truly reliable RSs, without cherry picking them. This is because attempting to debate such matters here is necssarily and strongly influenced by the individual biases of the volunteer editors who inhabit this venue. Our busying ourselves by imagining what must have been going on in Trump's mind is beyond the purview of wikipedians because it doesn't even rise to the level of Original Research.

Please leave your citations about what Arpaio said and will no-doubt say in the future out of this discussion as they don't interest me; he's not an RS. Greg L (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Citations of RS that are about what Arpaio said are valid. If Arpaio's antics are widely discussed in such sources, they may be significant content for various WP articles per WP:WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

New RS report as to Trump wealth

As I have often stated here, the sourcing on Trump's legendary wealth is based largely on that -- legend. It is quite as plausible that all of what appears to be his personal wealth is instead a lifestyle funded by his investors in order to sustain the branding of Trump as a successful businessperson. This story in today's Washington Post helps us reconsider the weight currently given to reports that, in part, make undue inferences concerning wealth that is not directly audited or disclosed [8] SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Already added by Drbogdan --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Should have waited before adding that to the article. This is breaking news and has not been vetted, most just hearsay. I wanted to revert the edit but I don't want to start some type of hostility. Sovietmessiah (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Added the word "allegedly" to the text with a cite from a CNN article using the word. All this news is slanted against the President and until is proven should not be written as absolute truth. Sovietmessiah (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the world "is slanted against the President", and this IS a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I even cited an article from CNN so liberals can't refute that this is mere allegation. This encyclopedic article should be neutral. Personally, allegations shouldn't even be listed until they are proven in my opinion, but I'd rather avoid an edit war. Sovietmessiah (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You mean an alleged edit war. SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

My point was that what some Americans might see as neutral would probably be seen as pro-Trump by most of the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Allegedly seems a little superfluous when it is already qualified as "ex-Forbes reporter said" which makes it pretty clear where it is coming from. "Trump allegedly did x" is fine, as the CNN source; so is "an ex-forbes reported said x" as other sources say, but both combined is awkward and unnecessary IMO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree - adding the word "allegedly" (and relevant CNN ref) to the article text (and the other related refs) seems indicated to me as well - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I hope my edit did not offend you. It's all well intended! :) Sovietmessiah (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I would rather see the "net worth" thingy removed completely. Is it really a defining characteristic of the man, other than the fact his claims of his wealth outstrip reality? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If anyone has the energy, it would be worth reevaluating everything in this article to take stock of how much of its content is parroting Mr. Trump's public relations narratives that have been crafted to generate media reports that have no independent verification. And now that he's in office, we see widespread RS reports that the people surrounding him (and recently departed) have felt obliged to promote false narrative in order to avoid termination or obstruction of their official duties. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a defining characteristic. Before the Presidency, President Trump was most recognizable for being a successful businessman and host of The Apprentice, attributed to him because of his wealth. Sovietmessiah (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it was because of the appearance of wealth that he created. In fact, RS tell us he was broke which is why he reinvented himself into a pop-parody of a rich mogul that was sold to a certain number of credulous folks. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is weighted with far too much OR and speculation. NYTimes article in 2015 - apparently, there is some confusion here about "wealth" vs "worth". Stick to the facts, please. A person with $300 million is not exactly poor. Forbes recently published (4/21/2018) his real time net worth at $3.1 B so I really don't know what all the chatter is about. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding - I checked the cited sources - opinion pieces - I also listened to the recording...it was not what was represented. The edit is challenged as poorly sourced, and irrelevant. Why should we care what a Forbes ex-writer says, and how is that information encyclopedic? It is unsubstantiated fodder. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme You wrote "I also listened to the recording...it was not what was represented.". Could you please elaborate?- MrX 🖋 21:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

MrX, I actually listened to 2 recordings, each being a short clip. Listen to the very beginning of the 1st recording when Greenberg asks for person's name...what do you notice? Listen closely right up to the part where the person talks about consolidating the assets. The audio has been edited. Greenberg also wrote in the article that "...Barron told me, he [Trump] should be called a billionaire." That's not mentioned in either of the recordings. I also question why he waited 36 years to "unwind the elaborate farce Trump had enacted". I don't know about you, by my editorial judgment is waving a big 🚩. You also have to consider the methodology of the Forbes 400 list, and compare it to others in that same time frame, such as Bloomberg. Even with all that aside, what benefit does inclusion serve to our readers? It's certainly not the kind of scholarly sourced information that belongs in an encyclopedia; rather, it's one person's allegation after 36 years of not noticing anything unusual during the original phone calls. Whose competency does that speak to? Trump made the Forbes 400, so if that one phone call is all Greenberg and the Forbes editors needed for the listing, then maybe SPECIFICO is right about the Forbes' estimates being garbage. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, the Forbes estimates are garbage. This has been hashed over many times. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that Atsme is back to removing any negative content by spuriously citing WP:UNDUE. Also, the edit summary is false - it's not an opinion piece (doesn't matter if you make that claim twice) but a piece by an investigative journalist. And calling it "poorly soured" is a joke, right?

So is Atsme just going to consistently veto any changes to the article per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

VM: Read the alert at the top of this page then carefully reconsider your comment.

• Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

James J. Lambden (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It has received third party coverage so whether it is an opinion piece or not is irrelevant with regards to its inclusion. The question is to the exact wording and making sure that is due. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I think DUE could use some discussion. But, the sourcing appears strong. O3000 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The sourcing is questionable at best, the article is based on an allegation about an event that took place in the 1980s, and it smells just like a hit piece, which is great for baitclick but WP is an encyclopedia. To begin, the WaPo piece is a Perspective, defined by WaPo as Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences; i.e., opinion. The 2nd cited source is nothing more than circular reporting, links back to the WaPo piece. The 3rd cited source is another opinion piece they call analysis, and it too points back to the WaPo allegations, so there is no reliable investigative journalism going on in either the 2nd or 3rd cited sources. Jonathan Greenberg hasn't worked for Forbes since 2008 or thereabouts - he's a blog writer for HuffPo. I don't consider digging up prattle that dates back to the 1980s to be encyclopedic...especially when it's based on nothing more than one person's allegations. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you please not use nose-words to discuss factual text. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you call a nose with no body? (answer's on my TP) ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• We can cite opinion pieces as opinion (that is, with inline citations describing them as such and saying who said it), provided it also passes WP:DUE. The bar is high when discussing a high-profile topic like this, definitely, but in this case there are numerous secondary sources that establish that this opinion was noteworthy and had significant impact, so it's worth at least a few sentences worth of discussion in the article. You can say that you feel this piece is dumb and groundless and just an attack if you want, but given that numerous reliable sources have covered it as significant and noteworthy, they're what we have to go with, not your opinion on it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• It’s on audio tape using an alias he’s known to have used in other like situations. The way I look at it is that the entire concept of talking about Trump’s net worth is sketchy at best. He makes various claims with enormous discrepancies within weeks and once said his claims are based on his feelings about his worth at the time. Forbes really has no info about his possible liabilities. Even their annual discussion provides disclaimers. He hasn’t released tax returns. We can’t just blindly accept a Forbes’ annual ranking based on a few major holdings without a bit of disclaiming text of our own. Now, I’m not saying this particular revelation requires a section of its own. But, coming from an analyst that was involved at Forbes with Trump’s first entry into a Forbes’ list, I think it looks DUE and adds perspective to the reported number. O3000 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree for the following reasons:

1. The recordings are clearly edited, do not corroborate what is written in the article, there are no time stamps, no way to prove identity, or context.
2. It has been 36 years for this so-called revelation to be made public.
3. The sources are not RS for this inclusion - I explained that above.
4. It is UNDUE, and clearly not encyclopedic based on the way the information was gathered and assimilated.
5. I consider it a disservice to our readers and to our encyclopedia to include this in the article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include / restore: definitely of public interest and reliably sourced. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include / restore: yes - agreed => definitely of public interest and reliably sourced - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"The sourcing is questionable at best" - what exactly is questionable here? That it's reported in three different sources? That it's in a "Analysis" section which is NOT "opinion"? This is utterly spurious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

VM, I have already explained my position above. The primary source was the WaPo opinion piece (based on a 36 yr. delayed revelation that resulted in allegations supported only by 36 yo edited & unverifiable audio recordings), plus one of two sources that is basically circular reporting; it refers readers back to the WaPo article for the full article. The 3rd source, a CNN analysis (it's still opinion "analysis") states: The specific veracity of Greenberg's allegations, though backed up by a recently discovered audio recording, will have to be sussed out, but it is notably still true that we don't know as much as you would think about the President's finances. But the sources aren't the only problem with that sentence as I've already explained. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That is NOT a "primary source". That is a SECONDARY source. And it's not your job to evaluate reliable sources - that's original research. An "analysis" is NOT an "opinion piece".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources is not OR, the first paragraph says "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

VM, perhaps the following will help refresh your memory - WP:NEWSORG states: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Your arguments are becoming more unconvincing, not less. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"X said Y", however, is something that we can cite to an opinion piece (and, in this case, we also have secondary non-opinion-pieces backing that up.) You can argue with them that you don't feel that they should have reported on that piece, but those are things you should take to letters to the editors of those publications - they pass WP:RS, it's clearly WP:DUE given the level of coverage, and, therefore, we have to go with what they say. Regarding the DUE issue, here's some additional sources: [9][10], [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. It's a big enough story to justify one sentence in the article. (Also, let me know if you feel any of those sources would be preferable to the ones we're using at the moment; most of them are clearly not opinion, at the very least.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Newsworthy doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion, and if your only argument is that it's popular in the realm of circular reporting, I'm not convinced. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Newsworthy (beyond a certain point) absolutely does make it worthy of inclusion. From WP:DUE: 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. Something, like this, that is extremely prominent relative to other news about the subject, deserves at least a sentence in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, I think we're going in circles here. We have the main arguments (the question of WP:DUE, the question of whether we can include an opinion piece with an inline cite, arguments over the quality of the sources.) By a quick nose-count of the conversation, I'm seeing ~5-7 people supporting inclusion and at most maybe 2-3 opposing it - and that is being very generous to Atsme by including anyone who has voiced any direct objections at all at any point in the discussion; nobody, that I can see, has backed his specific objections explicitly, while several people have given detailed answers. Does anyone other than Atsme want to weigh in or add another argument, or to argue that this is not a rough consensus to include for now? We can refine it and try to improve it to meet objections; or, if someone other than Atsme really objects, we can go to an WP:RFC or something, but right now I'm seeing a rough consensus to include despite Atsme's vehement objections, and discussions seem to have devolved into like five or six people actively arguing with one person, with the arguments just repeating themselves over and over. --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the exclude column myself over concerns that it would be undue to have such a significant mention from only one source. If the information is true, other reports will corroborate it soon. Per NOTNEWS there is no rush. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

But what credible source do we have as to Mr. Trump being wealthy? SPECIFICO talk 13:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This report by The Guardian (citing Forbes) lists his wealth at $3.1 billion. There's nothing more credible in the landscape that speaks to something else unfortunately. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The only useful piece of information about Trump's net worth is that it has always been substantially less than he's claimed it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What? When the Brits parrot the guano from borderline RS Forbes it becomes the gold standard over other sources? Forbes is nonsense. It's like Basesball fans spring predictions of which teams have the best shot at the playoffs. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Keeping things aligned with the political genre...it's more like the media's predictions of which candidate had the best shot at the presidency in 2016. (I'm wearing flame-retardant underwear ). ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not relying on only one source; we have, at this point, something like ten different sources, many of which corroborate the tape's existence and contents. See my post above. If that's not enough to corroborate its existence and contents, what is? --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If a person believes they're running in circles, they may need to stop cutting so many corners. Aquillion, your comment that editors are somehow "being very generous to Atsme" leaves the impression of WP:OWN, and I find it very condescending. While your input and suggestions are certainly welcome, the same way comments from all editors are welcome, I don't recall an election that placed you in charge of our discussions, so please dial it back. There are no deadlines on WP. Your comment "despite Atsme's vehement objections, mischaracterizes my position. I never "vehemently" object to anything. I may seem adamant at times, but I can be persuaded by a convincing argument. You have not presented such an argument, so kindly adjust your aggressive momentum and try a more collegial approach.

I'm glad to hear that your objections are not vehement, at least; if they're not as strong as I believed, that means we are even closer to reaching a consensus. But whether it's possible to persuade you or not, it's both unreasonable and unnecessary to convince every single editor about every single sentence. That said, though, since you say you can be convinced on this point - what would convince you? When you complained about sourcing and due weight, I produced numerous sources, several of which ([18][19][20]) report the contents of the tape as fact. Your response, as far as I can tell, was to say that I hadn't presented any convincing arguments and then decide that this was a WP:BALANCE issue instead. So... tell me what you would find convincing in this case? --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I am now of the mind that NPOV, specifically WP:BALANCE, is what applies best in this case (my underline): 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. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. While it may be a recent event in the news, it certainly wasn't an issue 36-years ago. It is nothing more than a one-sided allegation based on edited recordings by an ex-employee of Forbes who now writes a blog for HuffPo. It obviously didn't stop Trump from being included in Forbes or Bloomberg, so at this point in time, what difference does it make? I mean the irony is off the charts. Media is now attempting to discredit the wealth of a person they have, for decades, portrayed as an extremely wealthy person. It is not only disingenuous, it punches all kinds of holes in the argument for inclusion. Oh, look - RS say Trump is a multimillionaire...no, a billionaire...and now that he's president, despite their consistently wrong predictions during the campaign, they're saying nah, he's not that rich. *lol* And while we're on the subject of worth, what exactly is that allegation worth to the quality and credibility of our encyclopedia? Our readers will not miss that sentence if it isn't included, and even if it is included, our readers will either choose to believe it or not; some simply won't care. I doubt that a large number will actually get past the lede anyway. Keep in mind, Trump hasn't even completed 1½ of his term, so there's going to be more material added to the article, and it's highly likely that a lot of the unneccessary gossipy stuff will be removed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

you don't get it if its anti trump no matter how idiotic it is it gets in. עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have Trump's net worth in the article as soon as he releases his tax returns and the mainstream media is in a position to credibly verify his claims. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I hope we don't have remove net worth from everyone who hasn't released their taxes, because that'd be thousands. OTOH if tax return is a Trump-specific requirement that's an even bigger problem... 31.171.155.106 (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If you look at most of those at the top of Forbes’ rich guys list, their money is in stock in publically held corporations and is public information. We don’t see their tax returns – and we don’t need to in order to understand their wealth. The problem we and Forbes have with Trump is that his companies are all private. Without his tax returns, there’s a lot of guess work. Frankly, that would still be true with his returns. We have to make do with what we have. In my mind, that means using the Forbes’ number with appropriate disclaimers, which I believe would include the statement from the Forbes analyst about being fooled into adding him into the list in the first place. Or, just say unknown. O3000 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure but wealth is assets minus debt. So their public assets are public but their private debt is... private meaning most cases are best guesses. 31.171.155.106 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, the Kochs don’t need debt. We know how they made their money. It’s public information by law. Trump has called himself the “King of debt” as his money came from large, risky investments with borrowed funds. His finances are clearly more murky. That’s not a criticism. It’s just how it is. O3000 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not just the issue of debt vs. equity, although that's part of the uncertainty in such estimates. It's that Trump's business is to manage assets owned (directly or via pooled funds) by others (e.g. according to his son, Russian others). Trump's enterprise earns a management fee but does not own the assets. It's as if we said that some American baseball manager hit 200 home runs last year when that was actually his team total and he didn't even go to the plate. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I produced ten reasonably high-quality, high-profile reliable sources covering this. If people were pushing to create an entire paragraph, I could understand your WP:BALANCE objection, but for something that has seen overwhelming, sustained news coverage, I think it's a bit silly to suggest that a single sentence on a tape that received heavy coverage is unbalanced or WP:UNDUE. Just for comparison to things already in the article, compare to the "professional wrestling" section, for instance; numerous things in the article have received far less coverage in reliable sources than this. EDIT: Here's some additional sources. [21][22][23]. Again, note that these ones unambiguously report the tape's contents as fact (and the last one provides extensive context to show why it's important.) I'm not sure what else people want given that we only need to establish due weight for a single sentence on a topic that has received extensive coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

it's one source just because others reported it it's still based on that one recording by one reporter who cant prove that whoever was on the call actually lied. עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No, what the sentence says is "the reporter said this". We have something like fifteen sources for that fact. If we were stating the reporter's claims as fact, we would have fewer (although not just one, since some of the sources reported it as factual.) Part of the reason we rely on WP:SECONDARY sources in a situation like this is because we trust anything that falls under WP:RS to do proper fact-checking and to give us proper context; when a reliable source says "X said Y" without any significant disclaimers, we assume that they've found that statement to be at least minimally credible to the point where we can report that it was said. Similarly, if we had fewer sources, your speculation that the reporter may have been mistaken would carry more weight - but we have ~fifteen reliable sources, none of whom treat that prospect seriously, which gives us a pretty clear view of how we should cover this here. --Aquillion (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because people are jealous of Trumps wealth or dislike the fact that is via a private company and not a public company doesn't mean that we should WP:CENSOR it. Sources have claimed his wealth is what they claim it is, even if you state that it just goes back to Forbes we need to remember that multiple sources have reported on it and therefore it is WP:DUE. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting censoring any claims about his wealth (or lack thereof.) We have to cover all claims made about it in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources; and this tape is obviously prominent enough now to support a single sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

An editor literally wrote I'd be happy to have Trump's net worth in the article as soon as he releases his tax returns above. We should not be waiting for tax returns but the reliable sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess I should've made it more obvious I was being sarcastic. The larger point I was trying to make was that it is very difficult to determine Trump's exact net worth, particularly because he intentionally hides some of the details. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh there is no doubt about that, but it doesn't mean we remove all mention of his wealth until it is fully explained. Rather we work with what we have. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. That's what we're trying to do with this addition, though, isn't it? --Aquillion (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I am kind of late the party, but I had hoped to clarify the situations just so I understand. Is all this basically to see if we should reinstate this material possibly with other/additional sources? PackMecEng (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. --Aquillion (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn’t really matter how many sources say that this report was issued. Only one agency has done the editorial legwork in reporting the original story. That does not add to the credibility. Until the report can be corroborated independently by additional sources it will be undue. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to be clear on what the disagreement is so I know what I have to find to resolve it. What you want is a source confirming the existence and content of the tape in its own words, rather than relying on someone else's description of it, correct? And if I can link you to one or two additional reliable sources that unambiguously say "the tape exists, these events around it happened, and it means XYZ" in their own words, then that would be sufficient to overcome your objections so we could devote a sentence to the tape in the article? Basically, I want to know what you mean by "editorial legwork" and what a source that would answer your objections would look like. --Aquillion (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we please try to be more compliant with WP:RECENTISM? May I also suggest a refresher read of the essay WP:Relevance? There appears to be an attempt to conflate Trump the person (this BLP) with the Trump Organization, which happens to be a LLC so it appears even that article is incorrect - see Bloomberg. Are we reporting on Trump's personal wealth or his business wealth; i.e. the LLC. If it's business, it belongs in the LLC, with very limited mention here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Do not include - It's just not looking like a major part of his life with major effect. A recentism POV/interpretation opinion piece that someone thinks he's overblown ? Exactly what wording is proposed here ? Across a 70-year life what was written earlier this week just doesn't have a lot of duration to have any effect anyway, and since its the umpteenth complaint about him I struggle to see it as being much more than 'this weeks complaint'. Markbassett (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include Aquillion's version – While I would argue the Forbes piece alone is UNDUE the press seems to have picked this up. I have seen articles in The Week and The New Yorker. Unless I have misread the credibility of the Forbes' reporter I think Aquillion's text in this edit is warranted. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue I would have with that is it does not say when this happened. He came out in april 2018 but this supposedly happened in 80's making them less relevant to today. PackMecEng (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

But we do include his 80s net worth; so it is relevant. Also, relevancy to today doesn't determine WEIGHT, RS coverage does Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Remove Forbes It's not RS for this wealth figure and we don't have the net worth of other public figures, e.g. Pres Bush, Clinton, Gov Spitzer, et al. Then we don't need to include why it's not RS SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Would that not basically remove the whole section? PackMecEng (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Good question. As it stands now, the section is more about Forbes and more on-topic for the Forbes article than for this one. I think a section could be well-sourced to discuss Trump's claims of wealth in all their varieties, contexts, and applications, and so forth. Some of this content is already in the article. We should not do anything to suggest the Forbes estimates are fact and they should not appear in the infobox. SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Do not include - it's a 36 yr old unsubstantiated allegation dependent upon edited audio tapes produced by an ex-staff member of Forbes who now authors a blog for HuffPo. It adds -0- value to the article, it is noncompliant with NPOV WP:BALANCE, and while it makes good baitclick fodder, it is not encyclopedic, regardless of how many news sources have published it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Do not include first off even if it was Trump on the tape who says he was lying about his net worth and since this was 36 years ago how does that make it that affect his net worth now. עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Same as I said to PackMecEng; we do include his net worth in the 1980s in the article, and thus it is relevant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include per my comments above, as long as his forbes 400 listing in the 1980s is included, this is very relevant. This text is also extremely relevant since we speak of his net worth at 1982 and his inclusion: In our first-ever list, in 1982, we included him at $100 million, but Trump was actually worth roughly $5 million' — a paltry sum by the standards of his super-monied peers — as a spate of government reports and books showed only much later.. In fact one of other RS we use here this nytimes piece (fron 2005) shows our wealth section needs reworking to show how much doubt there is about the various estimates given Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC) More RS are there [24]. The wealth section really needs a rewrite. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include - as before => definitely of public interest and reliably sourced - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include – I'm now convinced this is DUE. Trump has made a huge deal about his wealth for decades. The fact that he has lobbied Forbes to increase their estimates is not new. The fact that his estimates change radically from time to time and differ radically from estimates by Forbes and Bloomberg are well known. It’s known that numerous of his business ventures failed, even a multi-level marketing company that examined your urine and sold vitamins.[25]. As none of his companies are public, and no one has seen his tax returns, we can’t discuss his net worth without some context, of which there is much in reliable sources. And we should mention his net worth as he has spent so much time talking about it himself. We can add as much inline-attribution or "alleges" as we think prudent. O3000 (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

See my comment above. It appears we're going to need an RfC. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant to discussion Atsme📞📧 20:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apologies if I’m wrong, but didn’t you just suggest on another page that an RfC that wasn’t going your way be deleted and a new discussion and survey be created? And now here, you are suggesting that a survey, not going in your favor, be ended and an RfC be started? O3000 (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Provide the diff, please. It doesn't sound right. Atsme📞📧 04:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC) [26] made nine days after the RfC was started as opposed to my suggestion made 90 minutes after RfC start before there were any responses. O3000 (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC) You are misrepresenting what I said, O3000 - read the diff. We were talking about a malformed RfC that was not even started - there was a local survey in process. There is nothing inappropriate about asking for wider community involvement when an issue fails local consensus. In fact, it is encouraged, especially when it involves highly disputed areas. Atsme📞📧 15:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC) In no way am I misrepresenting anything. O3000 (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC) O3000 you've gone from an offering an apology if you were wrong to a flat-out denial after you were proven wrong. This is the second time you've misrepresented something I've said. Please stop. Perhaps you've forgotten that it was Rja13ww33 who attempted to initiate the RfC soon after the survey began, and a few iVotes had been cast. Drmies was first to point out the issues when the RfC was proposed, then he self-reverted, saying (→‎RfC on Lede Revision Change: never mind, I see it now: page was jumping up and down). Then you came along right behind Drmies and again pointed out correctly that the RfC was malformed. I agreed with you, which in retrospect may have been a mistake in light of what you're doing now. I think this discussion should probably to be hatted. It is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and you should not have attempted to discredit me to begin with...boomerang. Atsme📞📧 16:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC) The RfC is registered and has about a dozen !votes. I suggested that it be deleted on procedural grounds 90 minutes after it was started. It wasn't deleted. So be it. You said you agreed with me nine days later, after more !votes going against your position. The closer will have to decide if it was a legitimate RfC. In no way did I misrepresent anything. O3000 (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC) You have it backwards, O3000. I said nine days later into the survey: "Delete [the malformed RfC], and let's see what local consensus brings". The RfC was not active yet, so how can you equate what I said into "but didn’t you just suggest on another page that an RfC that wasn’t going your way be deleted and a new discussion and survey be created?"?? The survey is what was already underway, not the RfC. I agreed with you to delete the malformed RfC, and said to let the survey run its course, which is nothing like what you represented to be what I said. Jiminy Cricket. What a time sink this has been. We have to stop meeting like this. Atsme📞📧 17:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC) The RfC points to the !votes and has done so for 13 days without anyone deleting the statement in the RfC to cast RfC !votes in the survey section, despite my objection immediately after the RfC was initiated. And you keep leaving out that you waited nine days to agree with me, after more !votes. We may disagree. But, in no way did I misrepresent anything. O3000 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include. This is very interesting and well sourced information (I have learned about it some time ago and was surprised). Actually, it explains a lot; this is one of most important facts to know about this person. My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

proposed addition to "Early life and education"

Hello, I would like to have the sentence below, with footnotes, added to the end of the first paragraph of "Early life and education," following footnote 14. (There were more articles on this and McIntosh was interviewed for a few Frontline shows on Trump but I thought the footnotes below were adequate. Was not going to add McIntosh's name but since he is listed on Wiki, did, according to policy. FYI: ultimately McIntosh thought Trump was likable and he did watch out for him, but thought that was not Wiki appropriate to add since it was a judgement.)

"Trump was asked to keep an eye on an underclassman, Sandy McIntosh, son of a business acquaintance of Trump's father, who has been interviewed extensively about how the culture of hazing at the New York Military Academy formed Trump's behavior."

Thank you.Ogmany (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. PBS & Salon are good sources, and the text makes no value judgements. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of the sentence? I'm having trouble understanding why it should be included. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I am wondering the same. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is not significant enough for inclusion. Sovietmessiah (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Does not look to me like a major part or major effect in his life that should get into a BLP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel this is necessary in a space-constrained article such as this one. It is effectively promoting Mr. McIntosh. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The sentence currently here doesn't even say exactly how the culture of hazing affected his behaviour. Oppose inclusion per above. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I have strengthened the sentence and also the footnotes supporting it: it is well worth including as it speaks to President Trump's leadership style and its roots. School is a major formative experience, particularly a military academy that you have been sent to as a very young teenager because your parents could not control you. I am not including Sandy Mcintosh's name because the point is not about him, (and had hesitated to do so anyway as per my first inquiry) but his direct experience with DJT and the culture at the NYMilitary Academy, where leadership was taught by old school military men, and how it clearly effected and informed DJT's leadership style, and he is now President. Also relevant in light of James Comey's promotion of his book, which he states is a book primarily about leadership and how decisions are reached. There has been a lot of attention to how Roy Cohn's mentoring of Trump effected his leadership style and the way he deals with opponents, and the roots of Trump learning leadership, which favors the style he perfected under Cohn's tutelage, is what he learned from the hazing culture at the NY Military Academy. It was deemed important enough to get coverage in major media outlets and is a formative part of DJT's leadership education. (And maybe speaks to why he like surrounding himself with Generals.) If I did not manage to do it this time, would appreciate any help in getting this point across. (It got coverage in other major media outlets but I do not have access behind their paywalls unless I go to the library, classmates in the various articles have confirmed this version of their time there, Frontline used the interview in other shows on Trump. I could add more footnotes but want to be brief but get across a very relevant part of Trumps leadership education.)

"Trump was asked to keep an eye on an underclassman, son of a business acquaintance of Trump's father at the Academy, which "could be a brutal place where grown men who were veterans of the real military ruled with threats and force," who has discussed how the culture of hazing formed Trump's behavior. Trump’s first year, "was hellish" and he was reprimanded, but eventually assumed a leadership position at the school and "lied about his athletic exploits, escaped accountability and did everything for show."" Ogmany (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't think this sentence improves the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

As good as the sources may be, sounds like armchair psychology to me. O3000 (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

-- Mr Ernie (talk), Emir of Wikipedia (talk), Sovietmessiah (talk), power~enwiki (π, ν) There are an unprecedented number of generals working in the White House. Trump's only military background, his school, and history of his formative years is important presidential leadership background. How about this, shorter, more direct, and Markbassett, (talk) Galobtter (pingó mió) it explains the culture where Trump came of age and the roots of his leadership style, with a direct quote from Trump on the NYMA's impact on his leadership style:

The Academy "could be a brutal place where grown men who were veterans of the real military ruled with threats and force. Trump's first year, "was hellish" and he was reprimanded, but eventually assumed a leadership position at the school and "lied about his athletic exploits, escaped accountability and did everything for show." The culture of hazing formed Trump's behavior, where "You had to learn how to survive, essentially, with some of these guys. I learned discipline — how to dish it out and otherwise.” (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Still no. If there's an effort to collaboratively write a book-length biography of Mr. Trump, it would be useful there. In this article, the fact that he attended the school is sufficient, there's no need for further detail. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Health effusive revisited

More [27] SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but not worthy here, if anywhere in WP. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a developing story, one of a long list of incidents in which misinformation and undue praise were deemed necessary by individuals who had official interactions with Trump. I bring it to the talk page now in the hope that in the future editors will be less credulous of obviously anomalous behavior such as was discussed in great length on the occasion of Jackson's bizarre charade following POTUS annual check-up. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing worthy on inclusion in an encyclopedia article. It's inclusion would be politically motivated. Sovietmessiah (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

But the point of that story is that the health report was politically motivated. Should we remove comment on the health report for that reason? HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, the firs round of editors who crafted the text relating Jackson's ridiculous post-checkup performance bought his act hook line and sinker. That's not NPOV and it's not encyclopedic. Fortunately for Wikipedia, it now should be obvious that article text that blindly accepts Jackson's pandering performance needs revision. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece by a restaraunt critic. If the piece isn't encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion, then it's UNDUE in this article. Perhaps if the author's opinion turns out to be correct after Jackson has served, then it will be DUE. Just wanting to add opinions/predictions like this one are what make me ^{cover your eyes O3000} *sigh*. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You best redact your smear of Mr. Bruni. Some folks might believe you. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I may not feel this is DUE; but Bruni has been a White House correspondent, a war correspondent, chief of the NYTimes Rome bureau and has written three NYTimes best sellers. I really don’t think it appropriate to label him just as a restaurant critic. O3000 (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be a good lead in for in text attribution "Former restaurant critic and White House correspondent Frank Bruni said..." PackMecEng (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, there is no smearing going on - unless you're referring to the material you want to add to the Trump bio. And why do you think working as a restaurant critic is a "smear"? And why are you being so defensive? You're arguing over whether or not an opinion that is nothing more than a prediction and criticism of a very capable individual as a potential failure before he's even had a chance. That is what I consider pointless criticism based on WP:CRYSTALBALL. Please do not hat discussion just based on IDONTLIKEIT. This discussion is highly relevant to your proposal. ^{Adding: WP:NOTNEWS - it's policy...abide by it. Atsme📞📧} 16:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

PS: I just now supported my statement by adding the NYTimes source that states he was the chief restaurant critic, which I mentioned instead of the others for brevity and because he was the "chief". ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In speaking about a political issue, we don’t say “A saxophonist said:…." when refering to President Clinton. Bruni has an established career in politics including a stint as NYTimes White House correspondent and author of a best seller on George Bush. Why would you say: “It's an opinion piece by a restaraunt critic?” Clearly your attempt was to belittle his experience related to the subject. O3000 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect, O3000 - you are relentlessly misrepresenting what I've said. Please stop - the diffs that clearly demonstrate your misrepresentations are accumulating through no fault of my own. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

How can I misrepresent what you said when I quoted it directly? This is the third time in a couple days that you have falsely accused me of misrepresenting your edits. And, I’m not the only one that you accuse of such. Your accusations are totally false and gross violations of CIV and BATTLEGROUND. And what's really absurd is that I stated that I'm not even in favor of adding this. I'm agreeing with your position. Yet, you still insist on making obviously false accusations. O3000 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Atsme, User:Objective3000 - mentions of WP:DUE bring to mind that this section is missing the larger WP:WEIGHT of health coverage before the exam, of late 2017 many many MANY pieces floating (false) speculations about Trumps health or fitness to serve. To properly serve WP:DUE seems there should be mention of them. I'd suggest just before the 2018 Ronny Jackson mention as it would also give context to the exam and why he was getting odd or leading reporter questions. Would it be better given as an overall summary or as several lines for the slightly varying phrasings of diet/health/mental state ? e.g. dailystar "Is Donald Trump ill?", Independent "Aides terrified over Presidents mental health", Esquire "Is Donald Trump crazy" book release "Dangerous case of Donald Trump", Mirror "Fresh concerns over Donald Trump's health after uses both hands for glass of water", Vice "13 town halls on Trumps mental health", USA Today "President Donald Trump: How is his health", NBC news "Donald Trumps mental health", Chicago Tribune "Donald Trumps diet is bad for Americas health", the August bill in the house that would require Trump to undergo testing (Zoe Lofgren D-CA), Mens Health "Is Donald Trump the least fit President in Generations", NewsMax "Diet Coke habit prompts Doctors warnings".

Though I'm also thinking this all might be better at the Presidency article as examples of media coverage as showing typical representations in DUE weight seems the obligation. (Negativity and hyper focus of being under microscope and any possible negative interpretation having ready play in today's internet bubble-markets seems the situation, but simply representing the coverage is whats sought.) Thoughts ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the sources you mentioned are not RS. It’s not our responsibility to counter tabloid crap. There have been some RS comments on possible health concerns of both candidates, mostly during the election. Hardly surprising given their age, and claims by various people. Not certain what you are proposing. But, as far as I know, neither the WH doctor or a candidate's doctor are required to be fully forthcoming about a medical report. And, we shouldn’t touch armchair diagnoses – particularly in the mental arena. O3000 (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

O3000 - BBC, NBC, USAToday, Reuters, Chicago Tribune, House .gov site, etcetera are RS. Though it is kind of tabloidish rumor-mongering I'm struggling with if the heavy WP:WEIGHT of coverage regarding health would be better said as an overall or as different sub-topics. And of course to do so without crossing | Consensus 21 to omit any opinions of his psychology by outsiders. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

His alleged psychology. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - You did not propose content, but note that is an NYT Opinion rant from someone not medically qualified nor really about Trump so will not pass as an WP:RS for the Trump BLP in general or the Trump health report specifically. Bruni is also not prominent enough in his own right to make his rant have coverage WP:WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

One needn't be an MD to recognize when a competent MD is acting like a buffoon. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO To corect your entering view : This is more a recurring story, one of a long list of incidents in which misinformation and undue ranting were deemed necessary by individuals who had media access. Your bringing it to the talk page hopefully assures that in the future editors will be less credulous of obviously anomalous behavior such as was discussed in great length on the occasion of media circus prior to POTUS annual check-up. Really, I take the daily rant at Trump or Ivanka wearing a pantsuit or Melania wearing high high heels as comforting that they do not have any actual disaster to cover so are doing filler. But every mornings blurb are just not all going to be WP material. Over & out Markbassett (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about Trump's pant suit or whatnot. Maybe you read too many HuffPo or Rachel Maddow blog pieces. Actually I think Trump's suits are rather well-made. He and Manafort are two of the best dressed public figures we've had in quite a while. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You can be "best dressed" and health issues. The first in an opinion or a subjective award, but the other is a fact if true. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

?? Mark Bassett seemed to be saying that the principal criticisms of the Trump presidency relate to trivia and tabloid exposes of irrelevant factors. I presume you agree with me that is counterfactual. I wasn't able to relate your comment to the claim that because we are not MD's we can't see that Jackson was acting inappropriately at the press extravaganza celebrating Trump's pinch 'n' poke at Walter Reed. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO I would say again that your original post needed redirection -- this Ronny Jackson opinion piece is one of the significant percentage of coverage for the Trump White House which is on trivia or criticism and speculation over trivia, misinformation and ranting or snarky humor and general media circuses that are over nothing much. (Particularly on the internet, fad stories on a given day about Melania wore high heels, or that Ivanka wore a pantsuit, or that Donald took a sip of water using both hands, or that his hair was flipped over by the wind, or about a tweet typo Covfefe, or about counting things the opinion writer thinks are bad or false in his latest speech or since inauguration.) Your hope that future editors will be less credulous I suggest be less credulous about individual media pieces. If it's not picked up by a lot of others it will not have WP:WEIGHT for here. I'd prefer it should be 'had major effect on his life' to go into BLP. In the meanwhile - I think this thread is done, yes ? Markbassett (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I am guessing you are not aware of the previous discussions of this. My view is that the Ronny Jackson show doesn't belong in the bio article. It might be DUE in the Presidency article. However at the time of that event, various editors were so thrilled by Doc's performance that they included it here, without the context that it was political clowning and not medical information. Of course if Trump does actually live to 200 minus a cheeseburger, that view is subject to revision. So perhaps you and I do not disagree. How would you feel about deleting the last sentence that deals with the brain probe, since it's basically a response to a straw man unstated presumption that POTUS is malfunctioning? Whether to add that to the Presidency article (if it's not already there) is a separate issue, I think. SPECIFICO talk 11:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, persistence that is met with fatigue and silence does not equal acquiescence. Have you thought about giving it a rest? When threads get this long and convoluted, dropped and restarted, it's difficult for people working 55+ hours a week to keep track of what, precisely, you want.

If I recall correctly, this all began with a proposal to add a single sentence describing the physician's gushing manner of describing Trump's health. If that's what this is still about, we need encyclopedic language if we are to include this. The adjective(s) you suggest we use are important here. Fawning? Gushing? Lavish? Over-the-top?

Clearly, Jackson's press conference garnered press attention and critical commentary for his tone. But then, the popular press (read: advertisers) treat Trump and his wife far differently than the Obamas; Michele was on the cover of pretty much every woman's magazine at the checkout line whereas Melania, who is indisputably a very attractive fist lady and would normally be expected to frequently grace magazine covers is as rare as hen's teeth at the checkout stand. So if we are to buy into the idea that “boat loads of press coverage necessarily equals an encyclopedic topic that must be covered,” then lay it on us please, once again; what, exactly, in example text are you proposing? Greg L (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Greg, your essay has nothing to do with what I have said or the topic at hand. My proposal would be to reduce the undue coverage in this article by removing the bit about the cognitive function exam. What do you think? SPECIFICO talk 12:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Your response at first seemed reality-challenged in light of how you started this thread, which quoted a NY Times op-ed piece as follows:

More [28] SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but not worthy here, if anywhere in WP. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a developing story, one of a long list of incidents in which misinformation and undue praise were deemed necessary by individuals who had official interactions with Trump. I bring it to the talk page now in the hope that in the future editors will be less credulous of obviously anomalous behavior such as was discussed in great length on the occasion of Jackson's bizarre charade following POTUS annual check-up. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I note this in particular: This is a developing story, one of a long list of incidents in which misinformation and undue praise were deemed necessary by individuals who had official interactions with Trump. That's the problem with long threads that pop up over and over, assuming people can remember what's on your mind. It happens on Wikipedia. Your mentioning of Jackson's bizarre charade didn’t help things either.

So it appears then that you object to where we state as follows:

“ Trump requested to undergo a cognition test, and passed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment with a score of 30/30. Jackson stated, "I’ve found no reason whatsoever to think that the President has any issues whatsoever with his thought process". ”

I agree with what the others, particularly Markbassett, wrote here. My own two cents are this: An op-ed piece by a restaurant and movie critic, who voted for Hillary in 2016 (and his “voice caught” and “eyes grew wet” as he recounted the experience of voting to his mother) and who objected to the effusive manner by which an experienced physician (and rear admiral in the U.S. Navy) delivered an objective fact (a test result) does not impeach the objective fact; scoring 30/30 on the MCA test is a rather binary conclusion that means Trump has well functioning cognition.

That the POTUS has no impairments with the cognitive functions he uses to formulate thought is an altogether different issue from the thoughts he formulates, which are often controversial and polarizing. But that’s all an entirely different issue from what’s you’re complaining about; the two sentences are true according to the RSs, and are on-point. Greg L (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that particular source adds much, but we can find better sources than it, surely? If we're talking about mental health, this seems more useful - a bestselling book written by multiple experts in the field. If we're talking about Ronny Jackson's physical evaluation, here's an academic paper on the subject, which concludes that "To answer the question in the title, “Is Trump's Cardiovascular Health ‘Excellent’ or are there ‘Serious Heart Concerns’?”, Mr. Trump's cardiovascular health (risk profile) was excellent for a man his age in 2016 but worsened by 2018." --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Greg, there are many other sources that discuss the preposterous and unprecedented extent of Jackson's fawning, extra-medical, dissembling sycophancy. My view about the cognitive test is that it would not have been given (if indeed it was) except for the opportunity to rebut the sort of press speculation that is not of itself encyclopedic. So including the test results, unless we also discuss that background, insinuates an inference about the reason for the test. And I don't think that press speculation belongs in this article, so I think the test and purported results should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 20:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

We have more than just press speculation, though, don't we? In addition to the book I linked above, take a look at this, which highlights it and notes both the conclusions and the limitations of the MoCA test. I think that the book combined with that paper is sufficient to devote a sentence to the concerns about his mental health, to note the test, and finally to note the test's limitations. Additional coverage of it is here, here, here, here, and here. I think we should absolutely note the concerns about his mental health (but cite them to better sources than op-eds and to WP:PRIMARY press speculation.) Then we can mention the test score and the discussion of what it means, probably with one sentence for each of those three points. --Aquillion (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This would be a valid alternative. To explain to our readers why Trump requested the exam (do RS in fact make the connection?) and tie it to the bit that's in the article. I think we also need to help our readers evaluate whether any of Jackson's public display was credible or whether the whole thing was done to please Trump and quash concern. As to whether it belongs in this bio or in the Presidency article, that's another question we should eventually address. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Both you guys are coming perilously close to original research; it’s as if you start with the assumption that “Trump says things that are shockingly non-politically correct so he must be nuts, so it’s our duty as volunteer wikipedians to get the Truth®™© out.” The trouble with pretending wikipedians like you and I are muckraking journalists bravely deciding what the citizens really need to hear is that such a process on Wikipedia necessarily introduces biases. Aquillion provided this link to the Vox, which actually concluded the article with this:

“ As Richard Friedman, a professor of clinical psychiatry and director of psychopharmacology clinic at Weill Cornell Medical College, has argued in the Washington Post, we don’t need a test to judge Trump’s fitness for office: “The most accurate measure of a person’s fitness, whether mental or physical, is observable function in the real world — not the results of a fancy test or expert opinion. The fact is that Americans already have all the data they need to judge Trump’s fitness.” ”

That's enough said about that. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Feels like you are not paying attention Greg. My proposal was to remove the whole thing precisely because it refers to an unwarranted and undocumented suspicion that Trump is impaired. No OR in that. Then you quote Dr. Friedman, who supports my view. So do you agree we can remove the sentence about cognitive function testing, etc? SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand precisely what you are proposing. The totality of quotes from Dr. Friedman is shown above in my cquote; I wouldn’t characterize what he said as equaling what you have been saying here—not by any stretch. To be clear, the statement in the article with which you disagree and want removed, is as follows:

“ Trump requested to undergo a cognition test, and passed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment with a score of 30/30. Jackson stated, "I’ve found no reason whatsoever to think that the President has any issues whatsoever with his thought process". ”

Your question is this: “So do you agree we can remove the sentence about cognitive function testing, etc?”. My answer is, no. I am in general agreement with what Markbassett and Atsme have stated above. For some reason, Trump perceived the need to prove his mental faculties, asked for a cognition test, received one, scored 30/30, and a Navy rear admiral and experienced physician attested as much a press conference. Your arguments here questioning the legitimacy of that statement because of “Jackson's bizarre charade”—and even whether the the test was given at all—do not find traction with me. Greg L (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is fascinating, but I'm not sure why we need to mention Trump's physical at all in the article. I doubt any other biographies would include information on a physical claiming that the person is healthy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

In a related new story [29]. But, I agree with Power that none of this belongs in the article. O3000 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we mention the Forbes 400 tapes in the 'wealth' section of the article?

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. The main argument seems to be over whether the topic is WP:DUE (and, therefore, whether it would be a WP:BALANCE issue to include or exclude it.

Some relevant sources: [30], the initial article; secondary coverage in these: [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Include as proposer. The heavy coverage more than adequately demonstrates that a single sentence devoted to this is not WP:UNDUE; beyond that, we already mention that Trump was on this list, and covering that without at least noting a high-profile controversy related to that inclusion is clearly a WP:BALANCE issue. The existence of the tapes is not in doubt (Greenberg has produced them), and their interpretation with regards to Trump lying about his wealth to get on the Forbes 400 does not seem to be particularly controversial, in the sense that no sources have contradicted Greenberg's interpretations and several have unambiguously reported it as fact. This is a high-profile controversy related to Trump's wealth that must be mentioned in the appropriate section of this article to ensure proper balance with the (sometimes primary-sourced) figures already there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include per what I said above. Notable controversy, there isn't a "old stuff" relating to events 30 years ago clause in NPOV for disinclusion, and by the same token would disinclude all his old net worths. As Aquillon says, noting that he is on the list without the doubts/controversies associated is contrary to NPOV, representing all the significant viewpoints there. We should also include all the other doubts about Forbes's figures, which we currently present without comment. E.g, in 1982 his net worth was actually 5 million$ not 100 million$, according to this same article. Doubts about forbes figures were also reported in the 2005 nytimes source which we use the in the article. There is also a lot more coverage about his..very high, ludricuous..claims, as in Trump Revealed, "Yet his claims were questioned, time and again.". We do include the claims, but not how they are questioned - we mostly present the point of view of that of forbes estimates and himself without all the questions about them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include This should be included we but only if we keep it an appropriate size and mention that it is just an allegation so far. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include - as noted earlier => definitely of public interest and reliably sourced - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include: WP:RS. Would be a WP:POV decision not to include.Casprings (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include The proposer's first sentence hits the nail on the head. Greg L (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - edited audio tapes, no proof of dates or authenticity, purportedly dating back 36 34 years when the reporter was in his early 20s. He was an ex-writer for Forbes, so I guess he moved up the ladder 40 years later to become a blogger for HuffPo? Nah. It's just another allegation scraped up from the bottom of the barrel. It has no encyclopedic value. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, can you at least provide a reliable source to back up the claim that these audio tapes have been edited in misleading way? (Also not sure what the reporter's age has to do with anything) Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sound editorial judgment is all that's required - tape 1 clearly isn't the full conversation - it's a 1:47 sound bite - no proof of who called whom, there's no recorded date only Greenberg's word, no way to confirm what the conversation was actually about much less in what context it was taken, it ended as abruptly as it began. The same with the 2nd tape - a 1:07 sound bite - all you know is what Greenberg reported. As for Greenberg's age - he brought it up in the WaPo article: I was a determined 25-year-old reporter, and I thought that, by reeling Trump back from some of his more outrageous claims, I’d done a public service and exposed the truth. I must've missed his exposé while reading his online resumé. In the WaPo report he claims innocence - that he and his Forbes colleagues thought of it as "vain embellishments on the truth"...until 34+/- years later? Meh! And where does his story show up? Front page? No - it's in a Perspective column (opinion piece) that WaPo defines as: Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences. Poorly sourced for contentious material about a BLP (circular reporting counts as one source, and the opinion piece is the primary). He's barely getting any baitclick mileage out of it in the anti-Trump markets - zero lasting encyclopedic value - poof, the buzz is already gone. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. So, razor sharp acumen and unassailable logic of some select wikipedians could be used when the RSs don’t seem to catch on to these drop-dead obvious truths, Atsme. I suppose I might be able to go along with that. Moreover, your proposal seems to actually embrace the last of Wikipedia’s Five Pillars (Wikipedia has no firm rules), though this concept of yours seems to run afoul with the second Pillar (pertaining to citing reliable, authoritative sources) as flawed as the RSs can be at times. Greg L (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As long as observers realize that my razor sharp acumen and logic is also supported by policy including NOTNEWS, V and NPOV, and the guideline that defines RS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include - notable and reliably sourced. Also, including the fact that he was on the list, while deliberately ignoring the controversy about how he got there is a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

So you think this comment should be included because an ex-Forbes reporter is a more reliable source than the President of the United States? Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)g

That is a terrible argument, on multiple counts. 1. We're not excluding Trump's viewpoint, nor saying that the report is more reliable than POTUS (strawman), but merely including all significant viewpoints per NPOV 2. Trump's history of exaggeration and falsehoods is well documented and yuge. The ex-forbes reporter, meanwhile, is a investigative journalist who would be fired if he repeatedly lied etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude. This seems extremely trivial. Everyone already knows that Trump puffs himself up at every opportunity. His buildings are the greatest, his TV ratings are the highest, his poll numbers are the best, etc. This is just more of the same thing. This is useless trivia at best. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that it is so common mean we have to address it in his biography? Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include - notable and reliably sourced. Trump's primary claim regarding his qualifications for becoming president was that his wealth was proof of his competency. Each and every lie he told that is subsequently exposed is therefore notable. 71.46.56.59 (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

^{^^^NOTE: 3 edits total.^^^ Atsme📞📧 03:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)}

• Exclude - trivia lightly covered tabloid piece, simply not a major action by Trump or significant effect to his life that would make it suitable for BLP. Out of 10 M google for trump I got 39 on this and they mostly seem listed above. Most of those cites are tabloids or unknowns -- skipping past all those kgw, zeenews india, gq, esquire, ktla, hugoobserver, uproxx, pasemagazine, ... whats left? Seems a USAtoday CNN and CNBS is all thats left, 'Greenberg says in a 20 April WaPo piece', so apparently not significant effect or coverage. Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: We should be nice to Donald Trump because if he likes what he reads about himself on Wikipedia, he will be more likely to be nice to Wikipedia. Therefore I believe this unreliable personal attack on Donald Trump should be strong exclude. This unreliable personal attack accomplishes nothing. Brian Everlasting (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell if this comment is meant as a joke or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Unconstructive. Off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You already have a grudge against me because I disagree with your opinion to include this personal attack against Donald Trump. It's clear to me from looking at this talk page that you also have a grudge against User:Atsme because she disagrees with your views. Brian Everlasting (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC) I have no idea who you are, so it's sort of hard for me to have a grudge against you. Do we know each other from some other article or something? And... I'm still not sure if the last two comments are meant as a joke or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Once again, you resort to personal attacks instead of discussing the issue. Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I wouldn't include it in the form presented in Special:Diff/837621017, but I'd support including it as a caveat to the sentence He appeared on the initial Forbes 400 list of wealthy individuals in 1982 with an estimated $200 million fortune, including an "undefined" share of his parents' estate. The WaPo reference [45] claims that he was reported to have a $100 million fortune at that time. The NYTimes reference says Forbes gave him an undefined share of a family fortune that the magazine estimated at $200 million. The fact that Trump attempted to inflate his reported wealth in Forbes magazine shouldn't be controversial, and if we're including those numbers, we should mention it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the tapes are relevant but there are other portions even more relevant, as you say, as a caveat. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude 30+ old allegations are encyclopedic or relevant to this article. Sovietmessiah (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include. Obviously good content about a notable situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump by Al Goldstein

https://www.therialtoreport.com/2016/10/30/donald-trump/ ~~ Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Z75SG61Ilunqpdb: Any bit in particular you would like to share? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: it is a short audio clip, I am not qualified to evaluate what place in the grand scheme of history it may hold. ~~ Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't even get through the first sentence...

Extended content

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. without seeing the bias in this article. Consider the opening sentence... "Trump was born and raised in the New York City borough of Queens, and earned an economics degree from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania." Trump RECEIVED a degree. Whether or not he EARNED it is someone's opinion. Abkedefghi (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC) If you are looking for bias you had better keep reading, because "earning a degree" is a pretty common expression. Many/most of our US President articles mention "earning" a degree. I started working backwards from Trump - the first article I found that didn't mention earning a degree was Jimmy Carter. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Surely WP:WEASEL still applies. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also relevant here. The fact that garbage may or may not exist in other articles does not justify it here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC) I am fairly confident that neither of those links apply here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC) As soon as you tell us about the articles on other Presidents, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. WP:WEASEL applies to the cliched use of "earned". HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Most people would say that's a bit of a stretch :) The current wording may or may not be optimal, but the original poster's claim of bias is unfounded. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC) "Most people" is weaselly language too. The original posters concern was about the cliched and possibly inaccurate use of the word "earned". I too would prefer more encyclopaedic language. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Tweaked to be received. I don't WEASEL doesn't really apply here, as it is not a vague attribution etc (something else from MOS:LABEL may apply, but still I don't think earned is overall that much of a problem) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC) "Earned" is NPOV to suggest otherwise is petty. I oppose "received." – Lionel(talk) 02:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Sheesh. Let's see what other bias we can find. Trump grew up in Jamaica, Queens... Should be "was raised", that he grew up is a matter of opinion. ...attended the Kew-Forest School... Got attendance records? Should be "was enrolled at". While at Wharton, he worked at the family business... Sez who? Should be "was employed at". That's just one little section, I could go on and on. In my opinion, (1) both words are acceptable under NPOV, but (2) people cry bias far too often with no justification, and (3) other editors should discourage that, not accommodate it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 1 May 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. Psst..Drmies, can we collapse the above? Atsme📞📧 22:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobel Prize nomination

In January 2018, South Korean president Moon Jae-in praised Trump's tough stance toward the North, stating that Trump deserved "big" credit for his efforts in facilitating talks between North and South Korea[597] and has endorsed him for the Nobel Peace Prize - The part about the Nobel Peace Prize has been added and reverted [46], so let's discuss it. My take is that "being nominated for a Nobel Prize" is virtually meaningless (virtually everyone prominent in global affairs is nominated [47]), and doubly so in this case as it would be based on a peace deal that hasn't even happened yet. So it shouldn't be included, particularly in this article where space is at a premium. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice try. The New York Times of the gold standard of the leftwing, so since the source can't be impeached the strategy is to employ "UNDUE"? North Korea is the most prominent topic of Trump's foreign policy coverage. And with the South Korean president endorsing the Nobel it is most certainly meaningful and "due."– Lionel^(talk) 05:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The committee that awards that prize does not discuss nominations, and there has been speculation about many people being nominated over the decades. This should be mentioned if and when Trump (or any other person) actually wins the prize. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not a Nobel nomination. Until there is a nomination it's an inconsequential sound bite and WP:UNDUE. Lionelt may note that violating WP:AGF never strengthens one's case. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

What we want to avoid is a similar situation like what happened here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - As Cullen said, it seems any nomination wouldn't be public information. Therefore we can only wait until there is an award. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm new to Trump and this whole DS thing. While I hate to curtail all of the enlightening discourse, can I fire up a RFC right now or is there some kind of waiting period? – Lionel^(talk) 06:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing formal, but we would generally wait at least several days to see if a consensus develops. For something like this, a local consensus should be sufficient in my opinion, but I don't run the place. This has nothing to do with the ArbCom restrictions or DS. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the meaningless endorsement being added to the article. Per WP:WEIGHT, I will oppose any such addition unless Trump actually wins the award. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not only would this endorsement be meaningless if genuine, it's not even a real endorsement:

  Mr Moon made the comment in response to a suggestion that he receive the [Nobel Peace Prize] by the widow of late South Korean president Kim Dae-jung, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000 after a summit with then North Korean leader Kim Jong Il...Mr Moon responded to the suggestion of Nobel glory by saying, “President Trump can take the Nobel prize. The only thing we need is peace,” according to the South’s presidential office.

• In other words, Moon was basically saying, "I don't need it, let him have it." That is NOT an endorsement, so it's even MORE meaningless. --Calton | Talk 13:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:10YT WP:NOTNEWS Not meaningful at this point. If we did publish stuff like this, more interesting would be: [48]. Not suggesting it be added either. O3000 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:10YT and WP:NOTNEWS. As I heard on NPR yesterday during the story discussing this topic, foreign leaders have learned that the quickest way to Trump's good graces is flattery. That's all that Moon's comment was. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as utterly meaningless, also per above & NOTNEWS. –Davey2010^Talk 18:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - while I certainly endorse global peace, and recognize who the primary players are in that negotiation, it's all still speculation at this point. Let's not put the cart in front of the horse. Let it incubate. 🐣 ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Sovietmessiah (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This comes up all the time. We NEVER mention Nobel Prize nominations. They mean absolutely nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• UNDUE at this time - if he was awarded one it would be mentioned in the BLP, but meanwhile it's not got enough buzz to be worth consideration. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment we now have an "actual" nomination [49], as mentioned above this changes absolutely nothing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket! I hope that nom doesn't jinx anything. I'm feeling like a sitting hen who was just shooed off her nest by Don Tyson. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not news after a few days of aging. And definitely not encyclopedic meat & potatoes for the ages. Greg L (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we give a presumption of accuracy to claims made by Trump?

This has been bugging me for a while, and I am very close to opening a discussion at WP:RSN. A lot of controversy has been created at one time or another by claims made by Trump on one subject or another. A few spots above this thread is one where his alleged wealth was being discussed and a lot of the figures cited came back to claims made by Trump himself. The problem that SPECIFICO comes close to stating is that if Trump were a news source, or for that matter just about anyone other than the President of the United States, he would have been flatly labeled as an unreliable source a long time ago. Obviously we can't ignore him or fail to cite him when he makes important statements or claims. But I am wondering if we have not reached the point where it is time to state the obvious. Donald Trump is not a reliable source and we should treat any statements or claims made by him as in some way questionable unless they are obviously non-controversial or they have been independently confirmed by reliable sources. Of course that opens a whole can of worms. How do we qualify unverified claims without calling the man a pathological liar or in some other way violating NPOV? Maybe I should should move this to RSN? Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Simple answer, Ad Orientem...use in-text attribution because tweets would be considered a primary source. If it's published in multiple secondary/third party sources, include the text with inline citations. Unless Trump has been professionally diagnosed with verifiable medical records to be a pathological liar, it is still "opinion" regardless of how many RS speculate about it. We have already determined with this president, and those before him, that what some consider lies others do not perceive to be lies...and that is why in-text attribution works best, and is the least disruptive. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Fact is not opinion. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

But Atsme, there is still such a thing as objective truth. Back in the old days "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" was clearly and correctly called out as a lie. It may be more difficult to ascertain the truth of "I didn't mock that disabled reporter" (I'm paraphrasing), and one would have to judge for oneself whether his excuse, "Despite having one of the all-time great memories, I certainly do not remember him" is true or not. That's where we attribute. But "I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering"--there is no other way to describe that as a lie, or else we must blame it one some massively faulty memory, a flaw in "one of the all-time great memories". As for his wealth, we must ascribe--to him, and the reader will just have to beware, or to Forbes or whatever, and the reader will just have to keep in mind that Forbes measures in certain ways, etc. But this whole "others perceive as lies" thing does not work here, since we're not others. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. His words should be taken at face value. He is a primary source in regards to his presidency. Sovietmessiah (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

President Trump lied more than 3,000 times in 466 days. CNN. Need I say more? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes you do, because the question here is about how we present information. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I would never state something as fact that he said. It would always be "...according to Trump". But that's not singling him out. We do the same for "...according to Comey" or "...according to Clinton" or whoever. I can't think of a single person that meets our definition of a "Reliable Source," that is, having editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. (On the other hand, when we do a "Trump said" something proven false, we should absolutely follow with the debunking.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course; we go by what RS say, especially fact checkers. We can't "assume" he's being truthful. He has never had a reputation for honesty. We must compare his statements to verified facts found in RS.

He is only reliable for what he says, not for the reliability of what he says. The difference is significant. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Those are the easy ones. The difficult issue is what to do when e.g. Ronny Jackson dissembles or Mnuchin, or Sara Huckabee? They are lying because Trump adopts a false narrative so that a true statement would be out of place, appear incorrect, or be punished by him. This is not me speaking, that's what RS tell us. Making the issue worse, the mainstream press is reluctant to write stories one after the other saying that the Administration today lied about A B C D E... I was starttled to see NBC News' Andrea Mitchell hold up an NSA statement on Iran yesterday evening and call it a lie. She had plenty of documentation for that, but the press generally cannot or will not be so clear about the daily events. Who thinks Trump actually took the Montreal Cognitive Test? What makes you think so? Would Jackson's report have been any different even if Trump couldn't pass the test? So why administer it? Did they in fact administer it? Dana Milbank has his doubts. So does Frank Bruni. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is an interesting question. All politicians exaggerate, and a not small percentage outright lie. But Trump appears to be nearly unique. In his own book, he calls it “truthful hyperbole”, which seems to say that he thinks hyperbole can be truth if you don’t expect people to believe it. Only, he clearly does want others to believe what he says and has built his empire in this manner. WaPo presents 3,000 misrepresentations: [50] Anyone that listens to him sees constant inventions and contradictions. He clearly makes stuff up. I would not refer to Nixon as a constant liar as his lies were focused in one area (OK two major areas) and all politicians tend to break the barrier between truth and lies. I would not call Trump a pathological liar, as I’m not a psychologist, and Trump’s lies seem to work for him; which would appear to contradict the definition of pathology. But, the simple fact that he has an unusual relationship with veracity, as WP understands it, is problematic. I’m not seeing how we treat this as different from any accused person. We state the facts as per RS and attribute responses. But, there is the problem that he also hires people and has the power to spread false scenarios. I’m open to suggestions on how to treat an unusual situation on current events. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I didn’t bring up Nixon to suggest this was a one party problem. I could easily blather on about lies told by LBJ and JFK. But, the current situation is a unique problem in my mind. O3000 (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It can only be done case by case...we simply cannot throw a blanket over the top of what politicians say and call them pathological liars. Politicians are like horsetraders - imagine a horsetrader trying to sell you a skinny horse, saying he's a good'un, but doesn't 'look' real good right now. You buy the horse thinking you can put some weight on him and make him look better, but when you get him home, you find out he's blind. I believe our current policies address the problem adequately - use in-text attribution. I see no benefit in attaching either an "unreliable source label" or a "pathological liar label" on a sitting US president considering the rise in his approval rating, the media's dislike for him, the growing partisan divide, and the fact that he has focused on his campaign promises. I think we need to let the facts speak to his character; let our readers make their own determination of whether or not he's a pathological liar or just ego-exaggerating. It is not our job to judge what he says as a lie or the truth, so why even bring it up? We haven't done that for any of our past presidents. Even the George Washington Cherry Tree myth has been debunked. 😢 Case by case...in-text attribution...until there has been a medical or scientific evaluation/determination after examination and testing, and was determined by medical professionals to be a pathological liar. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)  

• "Should we give a presumption of accuracy to claims made by Trump?" Of course not, on two levels. No individual person is a "reliable source" except for the fact that they uttered or wrote certain words. We need reliable, secondary published sources discussing those words in order to analyze them or characterize them. On a deeper level, Trump is a special "edge case", because his falsehoods are so frequent and so thoroughly refuted by highly reliable sources. On a side note, Atsme, George Washington did not tell that cherry tree tall tale. It first appeared in a hagiography published after his death. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Cullen - that's why I linked to the story. My mention of it was for the sake of levity. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump's dubious relationship to truth and facts

Since we have a lot of editors here who are interested in this subject, here's a small portion of what I've got, nicely hatted so it doesn't dominate. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump's dubious relationship to truth and facts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a very small portion of what's available on Trump's notorious relationship to truth. There is enough material for a very large article. Every single day provides new material. There are plenty of opinions about the subject, but then there are the facts. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Lies are easily fact checked, and what fact checkers say should not be confused with opinions. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Trump's dubious relationship to truth and facts As president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks. Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up." Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent." Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true." Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously. Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods." Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful". Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He lies about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning. In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency." David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities." In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada. Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq". Fact checkers Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq". PolitiFact Donald Trump's file Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter PolitiFact designated Trump's many campaign misstatements as their "2015 Lie of the Year". 12/21/2015 Fact-checking Trump's TIME interview on truths and falsehoods. 3/23/2017 7 whoppers from President Trump's first 100 days in office. 4/28/2017 FactCheck Donald Trump archive Donald Trump, the candidate we dubbed the 'King of Whoppers' in 2015, has held true to form as president. 4/29/2017 The Whoppers of 2017, President Trump monopolizes our list of the year’s worst falsehoods and bogus claims. 12/20/2017 The Washington Post President Trump has made 2,436 false or misleading claims so far. 3/2/2018 Toronto Star Donald Trump: The unauthorized database of false things. The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods. 11/4/2016 CNN President Trump lied more than 3,000 times in 466 days. 5/1/2018 Trump, his supporters, and fake news Trump's supporters are especially affected by his false statements and attacks on the media and reliable sources. The effects of his attacks on truth are boosted by their uniquely high consumption of dubious sources, junk news, and actual fake news. Like him, they have a disdain for reliable sources and seem unable or unwilling to vet sources for reliability. Unfortunately, their reaction to sources and fact checking which reflect poorly on Trump and expose his falsehoods is not to believe them and move away from untruth, but instead to label it "fake news" and move deeper into a closed loop of delusion. Their definition of "fake news" is a novel, Trumpian, interpretation, as it is totally unrelated to the factual accuracy of the source. It is also an especially pernicious interpretation because these exposures of Trump's falsehoods are actually very real news and truth. By contrast to liberals, most of Trump's supporters are conservatives whose media bias limits their news sourcing to a very limited number of unreliable sources. Instead of being enlightened by reliable sources, they believe his falsehoods, considering them "alternative facts". A 2018 study at Oxford University found that Trump's supporters consumed the "largest volume of 'junk news' on Facebook and Twitter": "On Twitter, a network of Trump supporters consumes the largest volume of junk news, and junk news is the largest proportion of news links they share," the researchers concluded. On Facebook, the skew was even greater. There, "extreme hard right pages – distinct from Republican pages – share more junk news than all the other audiences put together." A 2018 study by researchers from Princeton University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Exeter has examined the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. The findings showed that Trump supporters and older Americans (over 60) were far more likely to consume fake news than Clinton supporters. Those most likely to visit fake news websites were the 10% of Americans who consumed the most conservative information. There was a very large difference (800%) in the consumption of fake news stories as related to total news consumption between Trump supporters (6.2%) and Clinton supporters (0.8%). The study also showed that fake pro-Trump and fake pro-Clinton news stories were read by their supporters, but with a significant difference: Trump supporters consumed far more (40%) than Clinton supporters (15%). Facebook was by far the key "gateway" website where these fake stories were spread, and which led people to then go to the fake news websites. Fact checks of fake news were rarely seen by consumers, with none of those who saw a fake news story being reached by a related fact check. Brendan Nyhan, one of the researchers, emphatically stated in an interview on NBC News: "People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." (Bolding added) NBC NEWS: "It feels like there's a connection between having an active portion of a party that's prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you're describing." NYHAN: "It's worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it's also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." References

My goodness, BR...Trump calls the media fake news, and the media strikes back by publishing as many Trump lies as they can find. Trump is all about baitclick media made easy via his tweets and other avenues of public exposure ^{not to be mistaken for public exposure}, unlike no other president before him, which may explain why he has 10x as many published lies. I don't agree that a blanket statement about him being a pathological liar is DUE - habitual, perhaps, but not pathological - and only on a case by case basis. I would not oppose inclusion of his most significant/notable lies that have long lasting, encyclopedic value - something readers can readily associate with him, like some of the lies associated with past presidents. In the interim, can we please balance some of the speculation and journalistic opinion by adding more fact-based statements per DUE & BALANCE? See this BBC article, Donald Trump: How the media created the president. David Sillito did an excellent job explaining how Trump's victory was "...a brutal kick in the teeth for those loathed pundits, insiders and "righteous mongers". But it was also a humiliation for the thousands of journalists who had spent months trying to warn the public about Donald J Trump." It clearly has long lasting encyclopedic value as it relates to Trump's victory - not excuses but facts about how the media failed to notice the "strangeness" about Trump's speeches and "...how much of what he says refers to issues and topics that are not part of the mainstream news agenda." IOW, media got "Trumped". Sillito asked an important question in his BBC article as it relates to "alt-media" using Breitbart as an example: Bannon is a man who also shares all the right enemies. But how do we know people believe him any more than other parts of the media? Ahhh...the million dollar question; the answer to which no one can say for certain, but it addresses the hatted articles you listed above. The fake news narrative and attempts to shake Trump voters from the trees is very POV, and factually unsupported. We can say some reports have indicated that more (alt-right than alt-left readers, or whatever) read fake news...and include inline attribution...but it is still a bipartisan phenomena. Whether or not fake news actually influenced readers remains unsubstantiated, excluding opinions and speculation. Science tells us people read the National Enquirer for its entertainment value.

In 2010, Oliver Burkeman wrote an article about the National Enquirer in The Guardian in which he opined: ...but even if you buy it, you don't necessarily believe it. It's entertainment. Whether it's true or not is largely beside the point. What he said is supported by scientific/academic studies as evidenced by the links in this NYTimes blog titled Science Explains the National Enquirer by John Tierney. Example: ...positive information about nonallies was relatively uninteresting and unlikely to be transmitted, whereas positive information about allies would be shared enthusiastically. Those articles and their cited "links/sources" identify how they arrived at their conclusions, such as Sillito's identification of partisan views in his BBC article and Tierney's identification of who/what the studies were about - perfect examples of journalistic objectivity which allows readers to form their own conclusions rather than presenting the info with an editorial spin or based primarily on journalistic opinion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately no one has proposed labeling Trump a pathological liar in Wikivoice, but we can cite RS which do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but pathological is much different from habitual in that the former is the result of a physical or mental disease, and until Trump is diagnosed with such a disease, we leave it out despite the speculation or journalistic opinion in RS. It is unencyclopedic information because it is not supported by factual evidence. Being an habitual liar doesn't require a medical diagnosis and will more readily be accepted as journalistic opinion that requires in-text attribution. It's all about how we present the published information, and editor judgment tells us our first consideration should be to maintain the quality and integrity of the project. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Doc Bornstein's office raided. Admits he didn't write health report

An example of how a lie by Trump shows up under another more credible person's name. [51][52] [53] [54]

Does anybody here believe that Doc Ronny Jackson actually weighed Trump or administered the Montreal test? SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So the doctor is admitting that he lied the first time, and we're supposed to believe that he's not lying now? 😂 Let it incubate. 🐓🥚🍳 ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, funny how not being under Trump's thumb allows more honesty. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Maggie Haberman: "The dictation is abnormal, a doctor agreeing to it is abnormal and a doctor talking about it is abnormal." Twitter -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, my - here we go...CNN The person familiar with the episode described altogether different circumstances, saying the handover had been completed peacefully, complicated only by Bornstein's fumbling with his photocopy machine to make copies of the records.. Please, let the breaking news incubate 🐣. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. The anti-Trump bias here is getting old. Sovietmessiah (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sovietmessiah: No kidding. It reminds me of a twist on a line from The Piano Man: ♬ “And the wikipedians are practicing politics, as the RSs slowly get stoned…”♬ We might soon need a subpage for how Trump was responsible for faking the Apollo moon landings on a sound stage. Greg L (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No IReliable Source has challenged that Jackson did the tests he said he did. Your skepticism is pure opinion and Original Research. As for Bornstein, he has done himself no favors in the credibility department by his changing stories. Anything he says should be attributed to him, and if others challenge what he says, that should also be included. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's only OR if it goes in the article. Otherwise, it's "obvious." SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - you seem to have confused Bornstein with some fantasy about Jackson. Yes, most folks do believe Jackson weighed Trump and did a cognitive test. Rumors of Trump having health issues in late 2017 is sort of like the fad of Hillary being unfit due to health in late 2016. (Silly bits about her needing pillows to sit upright, stumbling, an actual head knock exaggerated, a real collapse from hiding pneumonia.) Seems just clickbait and partisan pitching doubt or distractions, but hey it's what the niche markets like so Limbaugh sold it one year and Maddow sold it the other way the following year. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Forcing Bornstein to hand over original of medical records. CNN's source, "the person familiar with the episode", actually confirms the basics of Bornstein's description of the incident: Three people with a letter, i.e., not the usual medical records release form, showed up unannounced and asked for the records, and - when a flustered Bornstein was unable to photocopy them in the next 20 minutes - Schiller (who's what - 6 ft. 5 or 6? and at the time was representing the President of the United States and accompanied by Trump Organization VP and Chief Legal Officer Alan Garten and an unknown "large man") told him to hand over the originals. The originals are the physician's property and responsibility, and coercing him to hand them over now is dictator style and not the standard operating procedure of the White House Medical Unit, as Sanders claimed (although - these days - who knows). Seems relevant enough to go into either this article or the one on the Presidency of Donald Trump. Bornstein was wrong for signing the "healthiest president ever" letter, for telling the NYT which medications his patient took, and for not telling Schiller (why was he in NY in the first place?) to come back later or the next day for the copies. However, taking Bornstein's quirky personality and the semantics out of the picture, what we're left with is abuse of power and the WH saying that there was "nothing out of the ordinary". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion as noncompliant with NOTNEWS. Leaving Bornstein's quirky personality and the semantics in, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. CNN actually gave more weight to what the source described as a peaceful exchange despite the docs fumbling to make copies. There's also the doctor's admission that he shared privileged medical information about his patient (who happens to be the president of the US) which may have violated state and/or federal laws. I read the speculation in the WaPo opinion (analysis) piece and even it was even qualified with: It may ultimately come to nothing... I oppose inclusion of this incident as breaking news (NOTNEWS). Odd that the doctor waited a year to disclose...but that seems to be a pattern with regards to Trump and people who appear to either hold a grudge after being replaced or may see financial opportunity or other form of personal gain by telling "their" he said/she said story, real or perceived. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Atsme, my friend, that's ridiculous! You didn't have any problem with Dr. Ronny Jackson's horsing us about POTUS' weight at the White House presser, right? And what makes you think he weighed POTUS on a scale when every commentator has said that the weight clocked in at 16 oz. shy of "morbidly obese" or whatever the unseemly category is called, and that POTUS was demonstrably a stone or more over his previous borderline reading? I know you like horses, but... SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2018

Donald trump and every other president gave an oath Folsomprince (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. O3000 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)