Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: Should the lead include the fact that Trump enacted, and later reversed, an immigration enforcement policy that forcibly separated children from parents?
• #RfC: Should the lead include a sentence about Trump's racial stance?
• #RfC: Should the summary of Trump's false and controversial statements be updated in the lead?

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. Canceled

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

11. Superseded by #17

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

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, 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: Should the lead include the fact that Trump enacted, and later reversed, an immigration enforcement policy that forcibly separated children from parents?

Should the lead include the following sentence?

He enacted, and later reversed, an immigration enforcement policy that forcibly separated children from parents.

- MrX 🖋 11:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• Yes - Trump's family separation policy is still receiving a enormous amount of international coverage in the news[1] nearly three months after Trump enacted it. In fact, it is so significant that we now have several related well-sourced articles about it: Protests against Trump administration family separation policy, Protests against Trump administration family separation policy, Abolish ICE, Women Disobey, and John Moore photograph of Honduran child. By comparison, the lead of this article contains facts that our collective sources consider far less important like " He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.", "He owned the Miss Universe and Miss USA beauty pageants from 1996 to 2011", "According to March 2018 estimates by Forbes, he is the world's 766th richest person", and " He enacted a partial repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act that had imposed stricter constraints on banks in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. In foreign policy". WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD strongly advise to include significant points in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. This certainly qualifies. - MrX 🖋 11:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• No per many, many reasons, mainly UNDUE. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. I would tweak the language to He enacted, and later reversed, an immigration enforcement policy that forcibly separated immigrant children from their parents. Looking at the list of policies from the current term presently in the lede - this policy while not the most noteworthy - does surpass other listed policies in terms of coverage. It might not "make the lede" 2-6 years from now (depending on whatever else is done in office, brevity might require lede removal) - but in terms of present presidential accomplishments - yes - it is lede worthy.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Seems obvious. The coverage in RS was massive; and coverage continues despite the Thai cave thingy, another story about children. Certainly seems due a sentence. O3000 (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• No Especially the POV way purposed. Undue and violates NPOV. PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Sort of - I've been thinking about this a lot, and I believe there needs to be a reworking and expansion of an existing sentence instead. All of Trump's immigration policies are related to his desire to restrict the flow of immigrants into the US and (arguably) increase border security. Some would argue that this is Trump signature policy. The lede should reflect that, but it must necessarily add some stuff and remove some of the detail. Consider the following:

During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after several legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision.

I would change this to something like:

During his presidency, Trump pushed for a series of immigration policies designed to heighten border security and restrict the flow of immigrants into the country. He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, called for the construction of a wall along the Mexico–United States border, and enacted an immigration enforcement policy that forcibly separated children from parents, that he later reversed.

I realize this reopens the previous discussion about the travel ban, but I can't see any other way around it that makes sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes because this is one of the most important controversies the subject of the page is mostly known for. I would also support the rephrase by Icewhiz and the version by Scjessey above. My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• No – A regrettable policy blunder, yet with no lasting significance. — JFG ^talk 14:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Not opposed to a summary of Trump's immigration policy instead, per Scjessey, but it will be very hard to make this short and neutral enough for the lede. — JFG ^talk 14:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This is part of an ongoing, resolute pursuit of racial and ethnic themes by Trump and his Administration. No reason to keep it too short. It's one of his 2-3 core issues. The ongoing RS narrative belies any claim the President, Atty. General, Homeland Security, and other Administration departments and officials "blundered" when they adopted an extreme policy shift and public presentation replete with accusations and aspersions, elaborate justifications, and media pandering. If you have RS that call this a "blunder" -- which would itself be an historic level of incompetent error on a par with Cheney/Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy -- please cite your sources for editors to consider here. Today we have more confirmation -- BREAKING: Trump administration says it won’t meet Tuesday deadline to reunite children separated from parents at U.S.-Mexico border -- that this humanitarian disaster is no mere "blunder". This should not be characterized as such without RS citations that credibly call this an inadvertent "blunder". If there are RS that call this a "blunder" these need to be brought to the discussion and evaluated. Otherwise, we should not waste any more time equivocating about the willful actions that have gotten worldwide condemnation. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• No The guideline for what should be in the lead of a BLP is MOS:LEADBIO not the number of articles that are responses to it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• On Fence Not sure one way or other about this in lede. I would say most definitely in the Presidency article but here not sure. I lean to

No. Definitely something of a major policy blunder, ill thought out and implemented, but its an issue of his Presidency not so much Trump as the person himself.--MONGO (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• But it's Trump's major policy blunder (and so much more). He is the embodiment of the presidency. He is the only person endowed with the enforcement authority of his office. Wouldn't your same argument apply to all of his policies that we so prominently list in the lead? What's different here?- MrX 🖋 18:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  I think a lot of the info in the lead belongs in the presidency article, not his bio. But on this Rfc this is the issue we are discussing. We can discuss the rest of it of course on other Rfc's etc.--MONGO (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Preferably as part of two concise sentences which summarize the most significant policies and proposals of Trump on immigration: the border wall, the Muslim ban and the family separations. The family separation policy is something that leaves a lasting mark on Trump, Nielsen and the administration officials who helped to implement it and spread falsehoods about what they were doing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, per WP:DUE, as clearly not one-off event, but largely animated by Trump's prior and consistent anti-immigrant positions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Lean yes. I would say this probably WP:DUE enough for the lead, but the margins are not huge. I strongly disagree with the opinion expressed above by JFG that this is a topic of transient importance; it isn't mere WP:CRYSTAL speculation to say this is definitely a topic of lasting implications and massive scope. But there are lots of topics of lasting implication and massive scope in the lead, by necessity, so that's the real question: WP:WEIGHT. Personally, given the need for economy here, and the additional editorial priorities of encyclopedic context and efficient flow, I would normally wonder if it was better off attached as a clause to broader sentence addressing similar topics, but there's really only one sentence touching upon immigration and due process of law topics, and it is an ill fit for a grafting. But even if it is a little stumpy for a stand-alone sentence, I think this topic probably qualifies for a "Top 10 of his most controversial policies/courses of action as president" for lack of better phrasing and therefore is due for inclusion in the lead. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen that Scjessey had already tread similar ground before me in their comments. I can definitely get behind their proposed version: it combines the most reasonable reading of the three most important policies regarding immigration (and the related topics of operation of law with regard to due process and human rights), which subject matter relates to a major part of his express platform--something he (and the world broadly) sees as a defining trait of his presidency and a source of clout with a substantial majority of his advocates. And both the framing and the individual episodes are expressed in bare bones fashion. It works for me. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but scjessey could I perhaps suggest a slight tweak in replacing "pushed for" with "effectuated or advocated for" or something similar that is a bit more precise as to the exercise of the powers of his office and political influence? Snow ^{let's rap} 08:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Absolutely. My suggested text was intended as a first draft jumping off point that I would expect others to help me refine. "Advocated for" sounds good, although reliable sources would even support something as strong as "demanded" when it comes to the wall. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, because the event received overwhelming and sustained media coverage. Kerberous (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes I'm going to add this quote from the judge that is now hearing a class action filed by the ACLU: "The news media is saturated with stories of immigrant families being separated at the border. People are protesting. Elected officials are weighing in. Congress is threatening action. Seventeen states have now filed a complaint against the Federal Government challenging the family separation practice."[2] Here at Wikipedia we are not experts on anything. We rely on real experts, federal judges for example, to direct our edits and their importance. Here we see exactly how to treat this issue and it clearly belongs in the lead. Keep in mind that years down the road it may be removed from the lead since nothing in WP is carved in stone - but certainly at the present time it belongs in the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The source you propose to cite was published on June 26, as the crisis was unfolding. One week later, it was over. Soon, all that will remain is memories of the legitimate outrage at this temporary situation. Therefore, UNDUE. — JFG ^talk 16:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

RS do not report this is "over". See [3] First, it's UNDUE to call it a "crisis" or "blunder" when it is the ongoing enactment of a considered and calculated policy -- and described as such by the Administration. This has been amply documented on this page. Please review all the discussion. Second, the Administration has now missed the court-mandated deadline for reuniting the children with their parents and RS report that there was no plan or capability to ensure such reunification, despite Administration statements to the contrary. There have been hundreds of demonstrations nationwide, dozens of congressional and gubernatorial visits to the border facilities, and other indicia of significance that warrent detailed article text about these ongoing abuses as another step in the Trump's demonization of Hispanics as criminals, subhumans, and dangerous intruders. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Over? Well that is a totally stunning assessment, to say the least. I did not use the June remarks because they were the most significant or the last remarks we shall hear. They just happen to give a good summary. Gandydancer (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about other editors; appears to have run its course. MelanieN alt (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@JFG: To say the matter is "over" is hilarious. It's still getting wall-to-wall coverage on cable news and print media. Recent court action has given the administration more time to reunite the children that Trump's jackbooted thugs stole from their parents, but a separate ruling has denied the administration an extension to how long the united families can be kept in detention. We're therefore on a collision course to a situation where the administration must release the families from detention, irrespective of their status. When that starts happening, you know the likes of SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer Miller are going to scream blue murder and get Trump to rally his deplorables. At the same time, there's a growing chorus calling for the abolition of ICE (the aforementioned jackbooted thugs) for their heavy-handed tactics. It seems incredible that this won't be a thing right the way through the mid-terms. I know this all sounds a bit too CRYSTAL BALL-Y, but any fool can read these tea leaves. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I think JFG has thoroughly disqualified himself from this discussion (as are others who ludicrously say that this material is undue). Let's stick with verifiable facts folks, like the fact that this was first reported in April (evidence of which I previously provided on this page) and the fact that the coverage is sustained, significant, and international in extent.- MrX 🖋 17:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC) No, JFG has not "disqualified" themselves from anything merely by having an interpretation of the sources and policies that varies wildly from your own. That's clearly patent nonsense with regard to every policy on point with regard to how we form WP:CONSENSUS on this project, and would still be a ridiculous assertion even if they were the only party advocating for that view (and they aren't). Unpopular opinions are not just protected in discussion here, they are encouraged--provided that they are good-faith, based in a WP:HERE approach and not otherwise disruptive (for example, litigating the issues obnoxiously immediately after a consensus has been reached). All of those requirements are met by JFG's contributions here as far as I can see. Now, I happen to agree that JFG's take on the editorial issue here is very much flawed (per my comments above), but the way to counter them is with better policy and sourcing arguments, not trying to get the opposition's perspective branded as "disqualified"--especially when it involves the most blatant utilization of begging the question that I have personally seen on the project in a while. Indeed, more generally speaking I think a number of others here (pro- and anti-Trump) really need to tone down the hyperbole in your discussion here by...oh, about eighty notches? The drumbeat of reference to major Nazi war criminals is not helping to achieve clarity and you should trust me that it only undermines your arguments, rather than augmenting them. It's ok to have a perspective about the conduct of these public figures which some people might describe as a "bias"; these policies have a moral dimension that cannot be ignored and tend to raise emotion. What is not appropriate is vocally pushing those perspectives in this space, when they are not a part of discussion of what the sources say on the issues in question and how to construct our content in accordance. More so than that, it is counterproductive to your goals, since those arriving via the RfC will take one look at that kind of soapboxing and become highly prejudiced towards viewing your editorial arguments through a filter that takes into account your clearly expressed bias; which means you stand less of a solid chance of winning a consensus consistent with your views, even if you absolutely nail the policy and sourcing arguments. Honestly, the behaviour here on this talk page from both "sides" of the pro and anti Trump divide is so often so out of control, that I am beginning to wonder if we need to set a limit on the number of comments that an editor can make to this talk page in a given span of time, since a very large number of contributors have set up permanent camp here and go from zero-to-"Nazi"/"Libtard" instantly in every single thread. That type of thing is in full swing literally every time I arrive here after receiving a bot notice--which happens about a dozen times per year right now. We don't need ideologues here, we need editors who can set aside their personal feelings on these matters (at least temporarily) to analyze the issues dispassionately with regard to the sources and our policies. I know that's not always where children and morally questionable acts are concerned, but that's all the more reason to self-assess and consider when you need to take a break from the page. With respect to Scjessey, whom I like and who I think has pointed us towards the appropriate resolution to the editorial issue here with their proposed wording, that point at which temporary disengagement is advisable has almost certainly been crossed any time a Himmler reference escapes your keyboard and you aren't working on an article about historical German Nazis. And I would suggest it is also true whenever you begin to find yourself proposing non-WP:disruptive opinions be considered "disqualified"; at that point, you are running the risk of becoming close-minded and the type of editor who is inclined towards echo chambers and confirmation bias. Snow let's rap 20:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Not exactly. JFG made a claim that is demonstrably false. Claiming that the immigration crisis is "over" is not a reasonable interpretation of sources or policy or reality. Such blatantly fallacious arguments need to be called out lest we slip into a post truth abyss where anyone can contradict readily observable facts and create an alternate history. I don't know if JFG did that intentionally, or if his comment was just unclear as to his intended meaning, but the result is the same. Likewise, editors claiming that this material is undue, while not bothering to address the torrent of sources that are covering this each and every day, show either a profound ignorance of policy or a deliberate attempt to subvert it. Good faith is not carte blanche. Good faith is earned by making honest, intelligent arguments backed by evidence.- MrX 🖋 23:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Even if I agreed with your rather extremist/my side view of what is a "reasonable" interpretation of the sources here, none of the above would make it logical, advisable, or consistent with our policies for you to try to brand an editor as "disqualified" from contributing to consensus simply because they have a viewpoint that is greatly divergent from the one you earnestly hold yourself. Personally, I think your view of whether the matter is WP:DUE for inclusion here is just as inaccurate a reading of WP:WEIGHT in its own way as JFG's. I have supported inclusion here after careful contemplation, but given the number of topics of massive scope and importance which might be added to this particular BLP's lead, nothing gets a free pass as to WP:DUE inclusion in that limited space. If Trump set fire to the Queen's hair in his state visit this week, then threatened military action to get out of the room, I still wouldn't disregard, out of hand, the perspective of those who didn't think it was worthy of inclusion in the lead. The man is just too much of a lightning rod for controversial acts and policies, so everything has to be weighed relative to the scope of his other official acts and public statements, which regularly impact the lives of countless people on planet Earth in unexpected and expansive ways. I believe that the separation policy qualifies as WP:DUE for inclusion in the lead. But I am much more firmly convinced that if you genuinely believe this is a WP:SNOW issue upon which reasonable editors (and reasonable people broadly) cannot disagree, you are out of touch with both policy and perspective. Snow let's rap 01:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC) The only "side" that I care about is verifiability and treatment of a subject in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. When I wrote that JFG has thoroughly disqualified himself from this discussion, I was obviously making a rhetorical point to highlight how unreasonable I think his position is. - MrX 🖋 01:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC) That wasn't "obvious" to me, but I'm glad you cleared it up before I posted my scathing response. I hope you'll be more careful with the rhetoric. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Fair enough, I can understand that; I sometimes try to convey a similar sentiment. But I think there are better ways of emphasizing that you think someone is out in the hills without a torch than to use language implying their opinion should be excluded. In addition to the effect it can have upon discussion, I honestly think it hyperbolic in this context. I happen to agree with you (if my previous comment in response to JFG hadn't made clear) that their "temporary coverage" argument doesn't add up to me. I'd call it perplexing. But not something so out of this world that I would assume it to be anything but good faith. Anyway rhetoric that implies an affirmative act to disclude a user's contributions to a discussion is not the right way to impart that we think that user has missed the train on a given issue--as I think we both agree JFG did here. There are much better ways to impart that, and I feel this is true regardless of whether or not this or that editor assumes that you were being more literal or more emphatic. Snow let's rap 02:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Snow Rise, I understand you're new here and are commenting in good faith, but you are not taking account of the context or substance of that user's participation here. He finally conceded that he was promoting his personal opinion which -- while absolutely unacceptable -- at least put an end to the denials and tail chasing that have plagued this thread and this issue here. Until you have vastly more experience on this page, it's best not to comment on contributors or behavior, even with the best of intentions. Thanks for your participation here. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Specifico, I am not "new to this article"; I've been summoned here by random bot notices for RfCs repeatedly over the last couple of years, and always find the same situation when I arrive; two highly politicized groups of editors slugging it out, with a larger but less zealously active group of editors between them, trying to right the ship and keep matters focused on policy and the sources, rather than personal feelings about the topic. Which facts you would have seen cited in my previous comment, had you read it more carefully rather than planning to defend the rampant polemics here as soon as you saw that my perspective was criticizing an ally. And not for nothing, but you're always at the center of these debates when I arrive here (or at just about any RfC that touches upon American national politics that I am bot summoned to), where I would say you may be the editor whose personal bias is most abundantly and explicitly attested. I suspect you and I share a lot of opinions about the topics of many of those articles that we could commiserate over if we were talking off project. But this isn't an open forum like Reddit or some such. When I participate in a discussion on a content discussion on this project, I have made a tacit commitment to sublimate my personal perspectives to community consensus regarding our policies and to support an approach to our articles which foregrounds them as taking priority even above what I think is a rational or accurate representation of the topic as I see it. The repeated Nazi comments and efforts to hedge out un-liked opinion were both inappropriate, and I probably would have made similar (if shorter) comments to that effect even if I had never seen this talk page before today (and your trying to suggest such criticism should not be made by page "outsiders" would have been inappropriate even in those circumstances). But as it happens, I have been brought here and to related articles about Trump by community outreach processes repeatedly over the last couple of years, and (like a great many other respondents here, I suspect) I know that these have become routine problems in these spaces. Snow let's rap 01:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Well, the Nazi comment happened right at the tail end of a lot of bad obstruction that finally came to an end. I have barely skimmed those. The fact is that behavioral comments of any kind are very problematic on an article talk page. I'm not challenging your right to participate anywhere on this site. I'm just saying that -- not you, but any relatively less informed editor -- is unlikely to get the story straight. Fact is, you added nothing of value and this little sidetrack has been the result. At any rate, I appreciate your having made a clear response and I'd be glad to continue on my talk page if you feel I'm being dismissive or missing your point. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Since SPECIFICO has a bad habit of appearing to speak for more editors than herself, I'll comment that she doesn't speak for me. I welcome Snow Rise's participation here and I'd like to see more of it. And one editor does not a sidetrack make—ever. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I am happy to have the other editors here decide for themselves how useful my post was. I doubt very much I was the only person thinking any of that. And suffice it to say, I'm quite certain I've seen enough of the "story" here to support anything I said. Again: A) the comments in question don't have a context in which they are not applicable; Nazi comments and unilateral declarations that another editor should be "disqualified" for having a different opinion from oneself are both per se inadvisable, generally outright inappropriate, and mostly damaging to the underlying arguments, even when they are actually the more well-reasoned ones. And B) just how many dozen threads of individual RfCs do I have to be randomly summoned here (and to related Trump articles) for before I meet your arbitrary and subjective measure of a "relatively [more] informed editor" on the history of interactions of those who have stayed camped here the whole time in-between, because: i) I've been to a ton now, and ii) that's not how it works on this project anyway. As to the rest, I may very well take you up on your kind offer to shift further exchange of opinions to your talk page should I think of a better way to say this in a manner that might bring us to accord. In the meantime, I agree it would be counterproductive to continue this line of discussion here. For one thing, the more I repeat myself the more critical it will seem that I am being of Scjessey, when in reality it is their suggested approach which I think best serves the article's needs and an accurate reading of policy. I suspect we are somewhat closer to agreement there. Snow let's rap 02:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I'm disappointed that an experienced editor such as yourself would make broad statements, personal disparagements, and other mischaracterizations of the history of this article in so casual and corrigible a way. And everyone reading this knows that the article talk page is not the appropriate venue for any of this, even were it to be more firmly based in fact and sound judgment. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Who did I disparage there? In the entire post I only mentioned one editor by name and for the express purpose of stating that I felt that theirs was the right solution to this issue. As to general comments about the history here--oh yeah, how dare I suggest Talk:Donald Trump has been contentious; if I ran a straw poll on VPP right now, I'm sure it would be !voted "#1 in non-contentious, always 100% rational debate--just exactly like you'd expect from the most highly trafficked discussion space on Wikipedia exclusively concerned with how we describe Donald Trump!" Look, my respected colleague: you didn't have to respond to me--my comment wasn't even addressed towards you. It's fine with me that you did respond and so long as you choose to keep engaging, I can give you the benefit of a polite response. It feels like we're past the point where you are open to anything I am saying and continuing this will be a distraction, but if you want to talk, I will--here or at your talk page. But this entire subthread is you repeatedly telling me I should have kept my mouth shut, that my comments were purposeless, and that I don't know what I am talking about. And if you expect me to just concede to that, you are going to have to bring a better class of argument than you have thus far, or settle in for a long wait. But I do sincerely wish you a good day. Snow let's rap 02:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC) @JFG: - "Over" and "Blunder" ignore every source, reliable sources, POV-blogs right and left, etc etc -- all of which are discussing the ongoing details of these horrors and (right:) how they are teaching the Hispanics a needed lesson or (left:) showing Trump's disregard for law in order to to demonstrate sympathy with white supremecist narratives. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC) I stand by my assessment that this story is blown out of proportion because of political tensions in the USA, noting that it is indeed personal opinion. I maintain that the peak of the crisis is behind us, and that people will have jumped to the next scandal by the time this RfC runs its course. When editors start describing political operatives as "SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer" and law enforcement agencies as "jackbooted thugs", I'm happy to bow out of the discussion. Had these remarks been typed by a less reputable editor than Scjessey, s/he would have found their way to WP:AE pronto. Finally, dear SPECIFICO, I will not dignify you with any further response after you dared compare this admittedly deplorable situation to the Iraq War that claimed a million innocent lives. — JFG talk 17:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Your admission is constructive. Adios. But having said that, please do not tie up and derail future discussions and RfCs based solely on your personal opinions. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) Not to try and outdo SPECIFICO's hyperbole, but the parents of the snatched children were told "we are going to take their picture" or "we are going to bathe them" by ICE liars. That sounds an awful like what what families were told at Auschwitz. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC) that's a sick disgusting comparison in Auschwitz the children were mass murdered as were most of the parents no one here is being killed עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Can we try to stay out of Godwin territory. Over the top commentary is not winning converts.- MrX 🖋 18:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC) I totally second (third? fourth?) the objections to the Hitler/Nazi references here. Let's have no more of that kind of talk, User:Scjessey. It is completely out of place in this discussion. And don't forget, according to some interpretations of Godwin's law, by making Nazi references you just lost the argument. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC) @MelanieN alt: The comment about Stephen Miller was meant to be a joke, referring to his well-known extreme right wing position. The comment about Auschwitz, however, came from the media. I first saw a reference to it on Twitter, and this was later expanded upon. So you could argue my comment is supported by reliable sources. Kinda. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC) How about focusing on the trolling and denial that leads to this kind of over-the-top comment? Nip it in the bud. The shower and snack bit has been widely reported in the press. Strange that some editors haven't read those RS accounts. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(restored part of the hatted section that is directly discussing content) — JFG ^talk 21:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: - "Over" and "Blunder" ignore every source, reliable sources, POV-blogs right and left, etc etc -- all of which are discussing the ongoing details of these horrors and (right:) how they are teaching the Hispanics a needed lesson or (left:) showing Trump's disregard for law in order to to demonstrate sympathy with white supremecist narratives. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment that this story is blown out of proportion because of political tensions in the USA, noting that it is indeed personal opinion. I maintain that the peak of the crisis is behind us, and that people will have jumped to the next scandal by the time this RfC runs its course. (Replies to Godwin point rhetoric omitted) — JFG ^talk 17:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes (Icewhiz Rework). The original sentence could seem misleadingly broad, but the rework is more specific. To the claim that this topic is WP:UNDUE, I would note that this policy has attracted significant media attention, along with widespread protests. Henry ^TALK 23:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• No - It's borderline undue per WP:LEAD, but mostly it's just not correct. I can overlook the 'enacted' incorrectness, but 'reversed' is untrue, and 'forcibly' is overly dramatic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Probably not It seems a little too much detail for the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - still very relevant and notable, way past any RECENTISM concerns.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Per Clealy due.Casprings (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• No because it's been quickly reversed. Not to mention that the family separation aspect does not belong, since it's not Trump who managed that aspect – it's actually the 1997 Flores settlement extended to accompanied children by the 9th Circuit Court for Appeals. Some have said that this was very noteworthy – let's wait a few months until recentism settles down to see whether this gains continued coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 12:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: You are incorrect, and basically parroting administration talking points. It was the Trump administration, and specifically Jeff Sessions under Trump's direction (presumably because Stephen Miller told him to) who reinterpreted the Flores settlement and enforced the separation policy that was not enforced under previous administrations. And it was only "reversed" under massive public pressure, and in a half-assed way so that hundreds and hundreds of children are still separated. Just yesterday, it was reported that the parent of one of the separated children was deported, effectively making the child an orphan. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: No, you are incorrect. Jeff Sessions did not "reinterpret the Flores settlement", he followed it to a T. To cite the American Immigration Lawyers Association:

July 6, 2016 — The Ninth Circuit held that the Flores settlement agreement applies both to minors who are accompanied and unaccompanied by their parents, and that the lower court correctly refused to amend the agreement to accommodate family detention. The court also found that the lower court erred in interpreting the agreement to provide an affirmative right to release for accompanying parents, but did not preclude such release and explicitly made no determination about whether DHS is making otherwise appropriate and individualized release determinations for parents. (Flores v. Lynch, 7/6/16) (bold emphasis added)

and [under] the 1997 settlement, DHS could detain unaccompanied children captured at the border for only 20 days before releasing them to foster families, shelters or sponsors, pending resolution of their immigration cases. FactCheck.org wumbolo ^^^ 13:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: You misunderstand. Regardless of what Flores says, no administration enforced separation until Trump's did. Ergo, TRUMP is responsible. Compare it to the multi-decade policy of US administrations that stated an intention to move the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It was deferred by many presidents because of the delicate political situation. Then TRUMP came along and decided to enforce the previously stated policy and get the embassy moved. This kind of thing is common, but it is important for you to understand that per reliable sources, TRUMP is to blame. TRUMP separated families. TRUMP orphaned children. TRUMP lost children. No other administration did anything like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No children are lost [4].--MONGO (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, both of you are out in the weeds here. Please refamiliarize yourselves with WP:Original research and stop filling up talk threads with extended debate about why Trump and his policies should or should not be described in this or that way, based upon your own internal logic--no matter how confident you are in that logic and no matter how many people here seem to support it. That is not how we arrive at descriptions in our content for this encyclopedia. Instead, please predicate your arguments on the WP:WEIGHT of how reliable sources describe the subject, his policies, and his actions. And yes, Scjessey, I do see that you paid lip-service to RS at the end there, but only after extensive ruminations connecting the dots with your own logic; you also did not cite any sources to support your assertions, let alone establish that said assertions are the general message of all sources on the matter (or otherwise WP:DUE). Snow ^{let's rap} 01:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• No - Seems like pretty obvious WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• No per RECENTISM and the fact that the word "policy" is controversial here.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Controversial? Sessions announced it as a policy. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree--or at least I agree with your conclusion, though I arrive at it via a different line of reasoning. The reason it is not controversial for us to describe the practice as a "policy" is not directly because Sessions announced it (that reasoning is WP:Original research; we aren't allowed to decide for ourselves how to describe a practice based on our own rationale, no matter how solid we feel the logic of our interpretation to be). Rather, the reason editors should (and have) constructed our prose to describe the practice as a "policy" in this and related articles is because that is how it is very clearly described in the overwhelming majority of the WP:reliable sources. It's a matter of WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV, not independent reasoning. That caveat noted, I agree that Mr. Guye's assertion does not hold water. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• No - I object to the and later reversed language at this time; it's not yet clear that the policy has been fully reversed, and even if it has been reversed, its effects have not been reversed. As a version without that language would also have problems, the best thing to do is leave it out of the lead at this time, and discuss it only in the body, where there is room for such nuance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a really good point that has gotten kind of lost in the weeds here while attention was focused on the recentism/lasting import debate. Honestly, I for one hadn't thought about the issue raised by that second clause at all, until you raised it--though it seems obvious now in hindsight. But can I ask, if we addressed your concerns there by omitting reference to the "reversal" or nuancing the wording to reflect that the future of the practice is in question, would you otherwise be in support of inclusion? Snow ^{let's rap} 00:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If there's a wording to the effect of "His child-separation policy was the subject of much discussion and controversy", I'm fine with it. (That specific wording is awful). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• No - Coverage in the body of the page is of course acceptable but it would be WP:UNDUE to include in the lead. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• No - WP:UNDUE in the lead. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Not for now. It seems too early to tell if this is so important that it belongs in a 5-paragraph summary of Trump's life. My suspicion is no, so I'd leave it out for now. However if secondary sources are highlighting this story as one of the defining stories of his presidency say, a month or two from now, then I'd be inclined to include at that point. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Based on the coverage it's one of the most noteworthy aspects of his biography. --Aquillion (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• No - I agree with markbassett, this seems overly dramatic and feels more political than encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjbagl (talk • contribs) 14:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• No. We should not be doing a hatchet job on the subject of this biography. This is the biography of the person, not the article on the Presidency of Donald Trump. Is the person known for hating children or being mean to children? Is the person known for being "anti-family"? A blunder by the Trump administration belongs in the other article. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes with Icewhiz rewording, this is one of the most covered aspects of his biog. Pincrete (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC) ps I am also sceptical as to whether 'reversed' is the most accurate word. Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. As mentioned by others, this fact appears to be regarded as being one of the primary notable events of the Trump presidency, which more than justifies its presence in the lead. Unless the lead were to be drastically cut down to remove other notable aspects of his presidency (and why would anyone want that?), I can't see a good reason to remove this particular one.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 11:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Scjessey's(Summoned by bot) Preferred version. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Question: Obviously this happened, and the word "tragic" does not do it justice. But are we content with having an article from Buzzfeed be the only source for a critical portion of the body's account of what happened? If we are, I question whether this belongs in the body, much less the lede. With an article that falls under the BLP policy and thus in an area of conflict, we do not get to take shortcuts. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 05:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• No But I would support a revision that avoided using "enacted" as long as the rest stayed substantially the same. (Buzzfeed and BBC News use "forcibly" but do not use "enacted".) -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 07:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• NO - as per PackMecEng above. I was sent a talk page notice to respond here and I actually find it hard to believe that anyone would say yes to this as it violates NPOV. As written it is actually also untrue. There was already a policy in place that separated children from illegal immigrants. What the president enacted had the effect of doubling the number of illegal immigrant children being separated. So the initial part of the proposal is wrong. It was also not really reversed. "Forcibly" is also a pov term as it could simply say a "policy that separated children from parents." But the sentence construction is still a mess since it reads that the policy was enacted to separate children from parents rather than a consequence of the parents being sent to detention facilities because of the zero tolerance enactment. I haven't read the actual article at all, but seeing this possible addition makes me very afraid of what other falsehoods or stretching of truth might also be in the article. Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• No WP:UNDUE for lede, which should succinctly summarize only the most salient details of his life.LM2000 (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. He is the President and responsible for this cruel and heartless policy and his appointees enforcing it (e.g., Nielsen). It defines him at least as much as his fluctuating net worth and having owned the beauty pageants. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Off topic, unconstructive. See WP:BATTLEGROUND. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Stop editorializing. Just because mods who share your views aren't going to punish you for it, doesn't mean you should openly flaunt policy and disrupt talk pages. Go find a forum or start a blog if you want to rant about how wrong it is to enforce federal law. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Editorializing, flaunting, disrupting, ranting? Who's editorializing here except for you? I voted in an RfC and stated why I voted the way I did. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Nope. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - only a few editors have weighed in on my alternative text (in my comment above), but those that have done so have looked upon it favorably. Rather than complicate the issue, I will present the alternative text in a new RfC once this one concludes. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

  Because the part "and enacted an immigration enforcement policy that forcibly separated children from parents, that he later reversed" is just as false as the first alternative in so far as it sounding like that was the the no-tolerance policy's objective. And it was not reversed, it was revised. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

  Er... what? The Trump administration pointedly said that the way to avoid child separation was to not enter the country illegally. This draconian interpretation of an existing policy was heartlessly used as a punishment and deterrent. After initially falsely claiming it was out of his hands, Trump reversed his policy with a totally unnecessary, meaningless executive order. Moreover, reliable sources all refer to it as a reversal (example) in their coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

  Wow. A policy of zero-tolerance was enacted. A consequence of that was to add to the amount of child separation because of existing laws that prohibited those children to be put into the detention facilities after 20 days. This was already happening before the president's policy, but on a much smaller scale. What was revised was the item on allowing children to stay in detention. We now have to house the thousands of unaccompanied illegal alien children. That's a revision of the no-tolerance policy (which is still in affect). Of course the consequence of the separation section of zero-tolerance happened under presidents Trumps watch, so he and the Republicans rightly bear the brunt of the public backlash. But then the Democrats also don't really want it fixed in any manner since they can keep using it as a weapon. It's politics as usual between the parties and I usually just laugh at anyone who gets sucked into believing either side. But the bottom line is the lines you proposed are not accurate for an encyclopedia. It's simple pov in the world of politics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Process discussion: Immigration

@MrX: I can see why you might skip the BOLD edit for something like this, since a challenge would be close to certain. But why are you going straight to RfC? WP:RFCBEFORE: "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." Where is the failed attempt to reach a consensus? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I already made the bold edit. JFG reverted it with the edit summary "Not impactful enough for the lede". Given how most discussions on the 89 pages of this talk page devolve into digressions and derailments, I thought it best to have a formal request for comments.- MrX 🖋 12:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

A discussion about RfCs and AfDs. Not related to resolving this RfC.- MrX 🖋 12:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

MrX, I'm also not sure if you should vote on your own RfC. Generally, people who propose something (such as afd) do not vote on their own proposals. (See WP:AFDFORMAT). L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC) RfC is not AfD, and editors routinely !vote on "their own" RfCs. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC) This is an RfC not an AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 12:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead include a sentence about Trump's racial stance?

Should the second paragraph of the lead include a sentence summarizing Trump's history of racially charged comments and racially motivated actions?

Specifically, something like:

Many of his comments and actions have been perceived by some as racially charged.

Sources

"If it were a one-time comment, an inadvertent insensitivity, it would still have stirred a firestorm. But Mr. Trump has said so many things on so many occasions that have rubbed the raw edges of race in America that they have raised the larger issue. " — The New York Times "The president’s approach to race has by many accounts damaged America’s standing in the world and complicated his foreign policy." — The New York Times "Mr. Trump’s history of racially inflammatory episodes traces back to his first days in the public eye. " — The New York Times "As he became more of a public figure, Mr. Trump waded into racially charged controversies that periodically erupted in New York. " — The New York Times "Trump has a long record as a provocateur on matters of race and ethnicity." — Fortune "You don’t even have to look into Trump’s heart to see his racism. You only have to look at all the things he’s done and said over the years – from the early Seventies, when he settled with the Justice Department over accusations of housing discrimination, to Monday, when just hours after his speech news broke he is considering pardoning anti-immigrant sheriff Joe Arpaio." — Rolling Stone "He has built a legacy of race-baiting throughout his career – from his apartment buildings in the outer boroughs right into the White House." — Rolling Stone "President Donald Trump’s long history with race is complicated." — PBS "While Trump’s actions have landed on both sides of racial currents, his public record depicts a man who most often moves in one direction: overlooking racial sensitivity and concerns in the name of fighting “political correctness.”" — PBS "Most Americans think President Trump is a racist, according to a new poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research." — The Washington Post "From the moment he launched his candidacy by attacking Mexican immigrants as criminals, President Trump has returned time and again to language that is racially charged and, to many, insensitive and highly offensive." — Los Angeles Times "Trump, who is desperate to distract his base from his myriad failures of policy, from health care to immigration, is perfectly capable of devising his racist rhetoric all on his own." — The New Yorker "Trump, rather than seeking to end the controversy, worked at length to fan it. Even after Obama released his “long-form” birth certificate, meanwhile, Trump continued to spread birther innuendo. The statement is at once a welcome recognition and also obviously too little, too late, after Trump spent five years fanning the racist conspiracy theory." — The Atlantic "World leaders, leading newspapers, and celebrities have used unprecedented language to describe a possible future president: "Racist", "repellent", "ignorant"." — BBC

Please indicate whether you support or oppose this wording (or very similar) being added to the lead. If you wish to propose different wording, please start a separate RfC. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 18:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• Oppose Conditional support if this RFC fails. Statement should be

  Many of his comments and actions have been racially charged.

  Enough sources state this, that Wikipedia should just state this.Casprings (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Casprings: Do you want to start a parallel RfC to see if there is support for that?- MrX 🖋 18:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Done.Casprings (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - It's hard for me to get fully behind this proposal without more specific wording, knowing how many different directions the basic proposed template could be built out in. What I will say with more certainty is that I think Mr. X has made their case, vis-a-vis sourcing, that something of this sort is WP:DUE for the lead. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, Mr. X, which four sources were you thinking for the cite here? Snow ^{let's rap} 20:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, probably the first four (The New York Times, Fortune, Rolling Stone, and PBS).- MrX 🖋 21:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Copied from the second RfC below: Oppose the use of "racially charged" per WP:EUPHEMISM. It's just a watered-down euphemism for "racist". [5] GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

A) Forgive the strong statement, but I think your categorical/per se description is nonsensical; this is clearly a matter of context and some sources will invariably be using the term as a hedging mechanisms while others may genuinely be suggesting that Trump is not a racist but has stirred the pot (intentional or not) on race--and all manner of variations in between. However, I doubt I can shift your perspective on it, with such a strong !vote. Anyway, more important is B) the "policy" you cite (WP:EUPHEMISM isn't even a content inclusion policy and is completely irrelevant here: it is a tiny little piece of MoS that is concerned with word choice, and thus has no weight when measured against an inclusion issue that needs be judged under WP:V and WP:NPOV.

Euphemisms in fact are fair game in any case where the same or similar language is being used by sources. It's not our place to decide what is coy language disguising a deeper criticism; we evaluate the sources on their face value without filtering them through our own meaning making and assumptions about what the sources "really meant"; that's WP:Original research. Frankly, a lot of sources do say "racist" explicitly, but that is clearly a non-starter for this particular article. So I think its ridiculous to say that this topic shouldn't be mentioned at all just because the proposed language leans more on sources that are a bit more tactful and reserved. Those are the one that are more appropriate here, given the BLP concerns. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - This sentence is backed by numerous sources. It is accurate, since it addresses widespread perceptions rather than objective facts. I don't accept that "racially charged" is necessarily a euphemism for racism, but perhaps some use it that way.- MrX 🖋 02:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Mentioned below, perhaps there is a better way to frame this. Racist, racially charged, both the same really and the media seems to always play connect the dots when they report these comments and twitter feeds. While it seems forbidden to mention other wording here (oddly) it would be best in keeping with BLP that we stay above the medias efforts to sensationalize and sell copy. Without violating OR it would be best we instead agree with a less condemning approach.--MONGO (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is is possible to decide on our own subjective interpretaition which is a less more or condemning approach without violating WP:OR by outright definition. Sources are completely allowed to "connect the dots" for themselves and arrive at conclusions. That's what we rely on them for in most instances, and as Wikipedia editors, we don't get to interject our subjective assessments of how well they accomplished that task. Reporting their conclusions is not only not against WP:NPOV, it is a defining requirement of that policy, if there is sufficient WP:WEIGHT to justify the inclusion. Deciding for ourselves that "the media" has "sensaionalized" something is an act of pure editorializing and original research, and not something we are permitted to do in our analysis of whether or not to include content. We faithfully represent the sources, we don't decide for ourselves which ones missed the plot. That's WP:POV by the back door. See for example Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources and WP:NPOVS. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Don’t be silly. Clearly contrary to WP:LEAD guidances for the opening paragraph, does not pass general guidance of WP:BLP to write conservatively, let alone the specific BLPLEAD or WP:RACIST guidances. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've spent a decent amount of time weighing my opinion on this addition. I've considered both statements MONGO made below (regarding our limitations given the drastically polarized media reports on the subject), and Snow Rise's reply above. We, as editors of Wikipedia, are tasked with producing neutral, verifiable content that can be referenced in sources. I don't disagree that the addition proposed here can be verified through the sources provided. However, I would also argue that the scope of the material published by sources varies widely based on the sources you read. For example, after a short search, I was able to find two articles that explicitly contradict sources above, such as here and here. For that reason, although I am able to see and weigh both sides, I think that the best solution would simply be to exclude such content from the LEAD of the article altogether. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – This proposal is just WP:WEASELing around consensus #24 which established that the lede should not allude to Trump's purported racism. It's also awful grammar: "Many [things] have been perceived by some as [qualifier]"?? Just frankly say "He is widely considered racist". (But that obviously doesn't have consensus, so say nothing.) — JFG ^talk 19:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I just don't get this "We either have to call him a racist or never, ever mention that he has said something about race that makes people uncomfortable--we can entertain nothing in between!" argument. I think it's literally the single least rational and least policy consistent of all conceivable editorial approaches to this situation. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(Discussion continues below) — JFG ^talk 22:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per my arguments in RfC #2 and I will now explain why I oppose saying "perceived". I don't see why we should include public opinion on individual issues in the lead section of the biography article. See Barack Obama for how Public image of Barack Obama is summarized in it. wumbolo ^^^ 12:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose For a few reasons. First comes off as WP:WEASEL, if you want to call him a racist in the lead just purpose that. Along those lines is also goes against WP:LABEL, clearly calling a BLP racist in the lead falls into contentious label. Finally fails WP:NPOV again can we just quit calling everyone we disagree with a racist alt-right so and so? PackMecEng (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Were he not in politics, then it would probably be a no. But to not mention it in the lead when the overwhelming evidence is that he speaks racism, fans racial hatred and bigotry, and in the role of president has forced the US as a state to engage in racist policies.... Well they will need to invent a new word as whitewashing really doesnt cut it. Its going to be the defining legacy of his presidency. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional support if Caspring's RFC fails. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 02:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support This subject has received a tremendous amount of RS coverage and is most certainly leadworthy. I agree with Caspring's proposed simplification. The described by some is unnecessarily wordy and a violation of WP:YESPOV (Avoid stating facts as opinions). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - as stated. I would support if it were simplified and read more like "Some of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged." Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (Summoned by bot) I'm not opposed to the statement but to its proposed placement, which is far too high in the article per WEIGHT. What I think needs to be discussed is whether it should be in the lead at all. My inclination at this point is no. Coretheapple (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support; obviously well-cited and reflects the content of the article. Regarding WP:BLP, it only requires that we have high-quality sources - we're required to reflect them even when they say things that could cast the article's subject in a negative light. Regarding WP:RACIST, the entire purpose of MOS:WORDS is to be cautious about specific wording, not to omit well-cited facts. --Aquillion (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support; so many of the issues that he returns to time and time again (Birtherism, repeated attacks on Obama as an "African-American president", false statistics on Black crime, attacks on immigrants, attacks on public figures for being Latino or being related to Latinos, attacks on NFL racial inequality protesters, the normalizing of White Nationalists, and the labeling of various Black public figures as being of low intelligence) have an obvious racial component. The perceived racial nature of all of these fixations has been well-documented in sources and is ably covered on the Racial views of Donald Trump page. I don't see why something that has become such a staple of his presidential run and presidency should be left out of the intro. --Dankster (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose; agree with Markbassett and JFG. It would violate several policies and guidelines to insert media sensationalist suggestions of racism to a BLP. Anyway, there is good evidence he is not racist, even though he has on occasion said racially inappropriate things. If there is an addition to the lead section alluding to him being a racist then his pardoning of the black boxer jailed for having a white girlfriend should be included, per NPOV.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended comments

Hunterm267: Yes, where someone is predicating their !vote in a WP:WEIGHT analysis, that's one thing; the sources are unending here and I can see where reasonable people can come to substantially different conclusions about that. Unfortunately, as seems to be constantly happening on this page every time I respond to a random bot notice (of which I've just received my second to this article inside one week!), a lot of people are just arguing for straight up "we know better than them, so we'll judge whether the sources got the situation correct enough to be worth including", aka dyed-in-the-wool WP:original research.

That seems to be an omnipresent feature of this article (coming constantly from editors who are here to be dutiful advocates for the "its obvious" arguments of "the right" and "the left"), and I honestly don't know what to suggest can be done about it, short of some massive house cleaning to remove editors who can't keep their comments focused on fidelity with the sources, but who instead try to do the job of sources by deciding issues for themselves which are as minor as "Trump must be exposed for the lying traitor that he is" or "Trump is needlessly maligned conservative hero who must be protected from the 'lying fake news media'". Now obviously this all reflects the general divide that is out there right now and is not at all surprising, and maybe I ought not be surprised how much of it is aggregating at this particular article. But I'm still discouraged every time I arrive here and see how little challenge the original research is getting. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(Continued from survey section) — JFG ^talk 22:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I just don't get this "We either have to call him a racist or never, ever mention that he has said something about race that makes people uncomfortable--we can entertain nothing in between!" argument. I think it's literally the single least rational and least policy consistent of all conceivable editorial approaches to this situation. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain my stance in a bit more detail. Trump's comments related to race issues have been called out by hundreds of sources, no question about this. He has also been assumed to be a racist by plenty of people interpreting anything he says in the worst possible way, and that's fair game. Now, whenever a new controversial tweet or policy grabs the headlines, the whole "Trump is an awful racist" narrative comes back to the fore, with a recital of his "45-year history of racially-charged statements and actions", and editors re-launch the debate about what should be added to the lede about racism. The current proposal is just twisting words without addressing the core issue: can we call Trump racist? I sure wish we could find a neutral and consensus-approved way of describing Trump's positions on this issue, but we have not yet found any, and the proposed convoluted sentence is surely not going to pass muster. There is nothing partisan about being careful in what we state, and prior discussions have made it clear that this issue is too complex to summarize in the lede section. I will also note that Donald Trump is the only person in the whole history of the world to be granted an article about his "racial views". That is absolutely extraordinary, given the hundreds of unabashed racist people covered at length by this encyclopedia. Where are the racial views of Frederik de Klerk? Where are the racial views of Alfred Rosenberg? Where are the racial views of Hirohito and Shūmei Ōkawa? This fact alone makes me inclined to conclude that Trump only gets this special treatment because of unresolved racial tensions in the United States. There is enough subject matter there for a dozen PhD theses. I have also observed that whenever Trump does something positive towards people of other races than his own, there is virtually no media coverage, and if there is any, it's generally dismissive with the good old "I have black friends" excuse. Meanwhile, what has been lacking is serious, dispassionate commentary about Trump's relations to race issues: it's hard to find because Trump usually acts in a race-agnostic way. Your skin color does not matter to him, he looks at how you behave. Your gender does not matter to him, he looks at whether you help him. Your political party does not matter to him, he looks at whether you approve of him. Your status as a traditional ally or enemy country does not matter to him, he looks at whether you agree with him. Troubling, for sure, and I'd love to read PhD theses and history books that will be written between 2030 and 2050, instead of the clickbait news of the day. — JFG ^talk 21:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'd disagree that Trump is the only world leader discussed on the encyclopedia who has an article dedicated to his racial stances; they just tend to be labelled differently in other cases, because those racial views for some historical figures developed into outright pogroms or other state action, which tends to capture those issues under a different header. It makes sense to cover Trumps racial perspectives under a more neutral and conservative namespace, that's all. But that's a bit of red herring and not directly relevant to the current content dispute we are talking about with regard to this article. More to the point for our editorial purposes here, it's not our place to decide which reliable sources were sufficiently "dispassionate" in their analysis for us to credit their coverage as "realistic"; anytime an editor finds themselves doing that, it is almost certain that they are engaging in a kind of unpermitted WP:original research. The fact of the matter is, there are reliable sources discussion Trumps relationship to race (indeed, they surely count is in the thousands at this point, even if we excise the sources that are borderline RS) and (as a matter of the most basic widely held point of consensus in the history of this project) it is our job as Wikipedia editors to represent those sources faithfully, not filter them through our own subjective assessments and confirmation bias.

Now, I'm somewhat sympathetic to your argument that it's difficult to get this into the lead in a concise statement which does not prejudice the reader either way, but emphasis on "difficult"--not "impossible". And it's an outright false choice that we have to opt to either describe him as a "racist" or not discuss anything he has said about race whatsoever in the lead. However you parse it, this is a part of the controversy that surrounds the man as an encyclopedic topic--a huge part. And our coverage should not be overly-focused on who Trump believes himself to be or even what he tries to be; it's perfectly fair game (from a WP:WEIGHT standpoint) to say that racial issues are a part of his controversial public image. Indeed, not just fair; it's impossible to give an encyclopedic summary of the man's public life without it. So saying that we should either "call a spade for a spade" and label him a racist or say nothing at all turns every relevant policy in this area on it's head. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a very interesting conversation, thanks for your remarks. You write that we should not bind ourselves to not discuss anything he has said about race whatsoever, and I agree. There's the rap: what has Trump said about race? Think about it, go perform searches, listen to a bunch of rallies, then come back and tell me what he ever said about race. We have hundreds of people who have said a lot of things about what they imagine they can read in Trump's mind by interpreting his "dog whistles". But has Trump said anything worthy of mention? This was discussed a few months ago when the "Racial views of Donald Trump" article was taking shape. Editors had tremendous difficulty finding any racial views actually expressed by Trump (see Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 3#Recent edits - textbook SYNTH and WEASEL). All that was found were platitudes such as "I'm the least racist person you'll ever interview", "racism is evil" and "no matter the color of our skin, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots" (the latter was bizarrely mocked by one editor as alluding to heart surgery).

Incidentally, you may be on the right track with: racial issues are a part of his controversial public image. We may end up finding an appropriate formulation along these lines. — JFG ^talk 23:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the summary of Trump's false and controversial statements be updated in the lead?

Should the second paragraph of the lead be updated as follows?

From

Trump entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries. Commentators described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false. Trump was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.

To

Trump received extensive free media coverage during his 2016 presidential campaign, defeating sixteen Republican opponents in the primaries. He was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. Many of his public remarks have been controversial or false. Commentators have described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.

This streamlines some wording, updates the ongoing nature of the false and controversial remarks, and keeps the material in chronological order.

(Note: The above proposal does not preclude the additional wording proposed in the above RfC.)

Please indicate whether you support or oppose the proposed change to the wording (or very similar). If you wish to propose different wording, please start a separate RfC. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 18:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a diff view of the proposed changes. ~Awilley (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Survey

• Support Better wording and a little shorter.Casprings (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons given by MrX and Casprings. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my rationale stated in the RfC.- MrX 🖋 02:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - wrong sequence. The second line on commentators is part of the primaries and part of the sequence about his getting higher coverage in the primaries. So moving it to after that makes a hash of the primary section, and creates a confusing ambiguity or false image of when it is associated to either the election or the protests. If a line was associated to either of those it would be in addition to the line 2 bit during the primaries. Frankly, I’m not well disposed to random edits in lead without better explanation than “A or B” just thrown out. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  When you say "line" I assume you mean sentence, right? That sentence is a general statement that applies from mid-2015 forward. It would be confusing and misleading to leave it between his primary victory and election, as if the policies only applied to his candidacy.- MrX 🖋 12:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It is referring to the description at the time of primaries prior to the mention of his getting media coverage. That makes a bit of sense. The alternative just abruptly starts by saying he got free media coverage comma defeated sixteen opponents which does not flow or make as much sense. Then the second version ends after his election with controversial statements and political positions then protests - as if the controversial statements starts only after he is in office, instead of being part of he got coverage in primaries. Placement in the order it occurred makes things a bit easier to understand. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - given reports of how many lies that Trump tells in a day is reported on the front page of major papers, it's a very significant. But being a lead, it should be in simpler terms. Use a simple term like "lie" instead of "false statements". Nfitz (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - It just doesn't read right to me. It puts "free media coverage" up front as if it was the most important thing, and the structure just seems a little awkward. I'm going to write an alternative version presently. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Article right now seems very biased and this feels like it removes some of that. It's very hard to remain neutral/non-biased with a topic like this, and the current article fails that test for me in numerous places, one of them being right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjbagl (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional support as secondary to my preferred by Scjessey - see below. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (both proposed versions) – I still fail to see anything wrong with the second paragraph as it stands. Almost each word of it has been parsed through hundreds of man-hours and megabytes of discussion. Nothing of substance has changed: Trump is still blunt, controversial, populist and creative with facts. Re-shuffling sentences for sport has zero value. — JFG ^talk 21:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It's outdated. The proposal obviously does more than re-shuffling sentences. Do you have any serious reason for opposing the proposed wording?- MrX 🖋 11:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Read your own proposal again: it literally just re-shuffles existing sentences, here they are with one word per sentence:

• Current: Primaries, Positions, Media, Controversial, Victory, Stats, Protests
• Proposed: Media, Primaries, Victory, Stats, Controversial, Positions, Protests

Nothing to change, really. Nothing outdated either. This paragraph is a condensed narrative of the two years during which Trump rose to power. Those facts won't change. We could do without the extended presidential stats, but readers seem to enjoy this. — JFG ^talk 04:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I think the primary change, which is a bit difficult to see in the diff and is unclear in the proposal, is that the "false statements" bit is removed from a sentence about the campaign and is moved to after the "Victory" sentence, implying there were false statements during the presidency as well. The verb tense also changes from past ("were") to present perfect ("have been"). Correct me if I'm wrong, MrX. ~Awilley (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If the main purpose is to indicate that Trump has continued to utter false and controversial statements after he was elected, a much simpler RfC could be called. Regardless, this paragraph focuses on Trump's campaign and election, I don't see a benefit in conflating events that happened during his presidency, which is the focus of the following paragraph. — JFG ^talk 15:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Pointing out a presidential candidate received free media coverage is a little the sky is blue. Yes it was more than others, but it is still trivia. PackMecEng (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

What does your comment have to do with this proposal? Free media coverage is already in the current version and it already enjoys consensus.- MrX 🖋 11:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The extensive free coverage bit is out of place. It reads as if it was the deciding factor in the primaries, if not the general. While it was certainly a factor, it would probably be controversial to say it was undoubtedly the deciding one.LM2000 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The "free media coverage" piece might have been leadworthy when it was added, but at this point it should be removed in light of all of the more leadworthy stuff that has developed since then. Pushing it to the opening sentence of the paragraph is a step in the wrong direction. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support; seems like a broad improvement. The amount of press coverage he received (which seems to be the only controversial part) is a major topic that has extensive coverage in the article, cited to a wide variety of high-quality sources; it's entirely appropriate to lead in with it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I should mention, I'm less than familar with his political campaign (I'm from the United Kingdom), but which source actually states his win was "a surprise?" The phrase "many of his public statements were controversial or false." seems to be a bit strong (and certainly would need to be written in great depth in the target article). The proposed change simply seems to be for the removal of "populist, protectionist, and nationalist.", which if he is stated as being this, I fail to see what removing this from the lede helps. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternative language

Here's my effort. It slightly reworks the first couple of MrX's sentences:

Entering the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage, Trump defeated sixteen Republican opponents in the primaries. He was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. Many of his public remarks have been controversial or false. Commentators have described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.

-- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support as a second choice, if my proposal does not gain consensus. It's an improvement over what we currently have, but I believe my version is more narrative. I'm especially not fond of starting a paragraph in passive voice.- MrX 🖋 12:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I could rewrite it to avoid the passive voice in the opening sentence and shift it to the second to make it flow better:

Trump entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage. After defeating sixteen Republican opponents in the primaries, he was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. Commentators have described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. Many of his public remarks have been controversial or false, and his election and policies have sparked numerous protests.

Is that any better? (edit: swapped things around at the end a bit) -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Drop the word "controversial" as "controversial" is unremarkable. Rewrite as "Many of his public remarks have been false." I am not saying I support the proposed wording; I am simply criticizing it. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not bothered by "controversial", but you should drop the word "false". It is a blatant and unwarranted statement of bias - not something an encyclopaedia is supposed to do. -- Jim Pleiades Hawkins (talk)

The "controversial" discussion is in a different thread. Trump has made many remarkable controversial statements that are not false. A couple of days ago, for example, he said he regarded the European Union as a "foe". It is not a "false" statement, but it is certainly controversial (and alarming to any sane people). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

what sane people are you referring to the sane people who think separating children from their criminal parents is comparable to the nazis separating children from their parents to murder them real sane people understand that there is no comparison and that the eu is a foe on trade like Trump said עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@AmYisroelChai: I'm referring to the sane people who know how to use punctuation and letter cases in a comment, mostly. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

so not to the insane who think the mass murder of millions of people is the same as arresting people who cross the border illegally and since when does punctuation and letter case matter in a comment עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey—please comment on content rather than editors, as per WP:TPG#YES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: At what point did I comment on editors? I mentioned nobody. Move along, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey—you referred to "the sane people who know how to use punctuation and letter cases in a comment". Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) But it is illogical to join the two concepts. "Controversial" statements are almost the norm. They are necessary at times. But "false" statements are worth taking note of, even in the lede. A president sometimes has to say controversial things. Is the whole country of one mind on all matters? But should a president tell big fat lies? If he does, that may be worthy of inclusion in his biography. I think we take falsehoods seriously, while the controversial position is understood to sometimes be the hallmark of a great statesman. I'm not arguing for the "great statesman" characterization. But when you link "controversial" to "false" you are creating a logical inconsistency. Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"False" alone does not tell the whole story, as per Scjessey's example above, and "controversial" is a compromise word for the remainder of it. Would you prefer "divisive" or "inflammatory"? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"Controversy", "divisive", "inflammatory" all refer to relatively unremarkable concepts. "False" is entirely different. Statesmen are not supposed to lie to us. But they very often have to take "controversial" positions. That is fairly normal. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: It is not "fairly normal" for a president to make controversial comments, or at least it wasn't until Trump took office. Usually, such comments are limited to the really crazy members of the House of Reprehensibles (the gentleman from the 1st congressional district of Texas, for example). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Untrue at all. The constituency of a representative of a country holds very different views on a variety of questions, and the way forward is not always clear. The present is always murky and the path chosen by a president is almost invariably going to seem controversial in the thick of besetting issues. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Semantics. It's "fairly normal" in the sense of the word that Bus stop is assuming—particularly in contemporary U.S. politics. But words often have different and nuanced meanings, and we're using a different meaning of the word. As I've said, if you want something more precise, it's divisive or inflammatory. Neither of those is "fairly normal" for a president, by any definition or sense of the words. Presidents are not generally known to be divisive or inflammatory in their speech, and in fact until Trump they were expected to be the opposite. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

In the context of a sentence making a reference to "false" statements, even "divisive" and "inflammatory" are a world apart. There should be a full stop between any assertion of falsehood and assertions relating to the far more mild qualities of being controversial, inflammatory, or divisive. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It's better, but I don't really care for "Trump entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican", which is redundant because he won the Republican primaries, and since he won the presidential election, it's obvious he entered the campaign. That's why I wrote "Trump received extensive free media coverage during his 2016 presidential campaign, defeating sixteen Republican opponents in the primaries.", because it avoids redundancy.- MrX 🖋 15:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that he entered as a Republican (having previously run for a different party and also been a Democrat) is noteworthy, so perhaps the second appearance of "Republican" is the one to lose:

Trump entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage. After defeating sixteen opponents in the primaries, he was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. Commentators have described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. Many of his public remarks have been controversial or false, and his election and policies have sparked numerous protests.

How's that? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would support that.- MrX 🖋 15:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It makes no sense to say he "entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage. How did he receive extensive free media coverage? Why did he receive free media coverage? By what means or by what mechanism did he receive free media coverage? Explain what made this free media coverage possible. Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is for the lead where we summarize significant points. The details are in the article.- MrX 🖋

(edit conflict) @Bus stop: Once again, you are arguing about something that has already been discussed and decided upon in previous threads. The lede is summary of the article, and the article discusses this matter here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Then obviously leave it out of the lede, MrX. The reader should not be told he received "extensive free media coverage" without further explanation immediately following that assertion. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That material already has consensus. Feel free to start a new RfC or discussion if you think it should be removed. This is not the place.- MrX 🖋 16:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Support change as proposed by Scjessey. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Didn't every candidate receive "free media coverage"? I mean, the media was covering the election, no?--MONGO (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned by MrX above - this is not particularly the place for that discussion. However, I believe to answer your question, "free media coverage" is best defined in this article, as such: Like all candidates, he benefits from what is known as earned media: news and commentary about his campaign on television, in newspapers and magazines, and on social media. Earned media typically dwarfs paid media in a campaign. The big difference between Mr. Trump and other candidates is that he is far better than any other candidate — maybe than any candidate ever — at earning media.. It's also discussed here, here, and here. My support !vote was purely made in the scope of a re-wording of content that already exists, and to change that content would likely require a separate RfC. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Again—if you can't explain it, you don't include it (in the lede). Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't need explanation. It's already cited in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It makes little sense to say he "received extensive free media coverage" without additionally saying what arrangement made this possible. I realize it is "cited in the article" but the lede also needs an explanation because that is a surprising assertion. It raises a question. The answer to that implicitly raised question should be supplied in the lede even if only by brief allusion to the mechanism that facilitates the "extensive free media coverage". Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It does need explanation or expansion in the lede. It was absolutely not a "surprising assertion" to anyone in 2015-2016 who had a pulse. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey—it makes no sense to say he "entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage because "free media" includes traditional media when the reference is to social media. In this source we read "Trump's canny use of social media helped elect him" and "his strategic use of social media propelled him to the presidency" and "Trump, who according to Reuters tweeted more than any other candidate in the presidential race, amassed 4 million more followers on Twitter than Hillary Clinton and 5 million more on Facebook" and "The social media company SocialFlow calculated during the campaign that Trump was getting more than three times more free exposure on social media than Clinton". Trump himself said "The fact that I have such power in terms of numbers with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., I think it helped me win all of these races where they're spending much more money than I spent". Repeatedly, in the body of the article, as well as in the lede of the article, the reference is to "free media coverage". That is not precise enough, in fact it is misleading. All of those references should be changed to "free social media coverage". I realize we have a section in the article called Social media and a separate article called Donald Trump on social media. But that does not excuse the repeated references to "free media" when what is meant is "free social media". Let us be precise in what we are saying. Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"Free media" does not mean "social media" at all. "Free media" is any media you get that you don't pay for. Because Trump continuously said outrageous stuff, he got extensive media coverage that his opponents did not get. Anyway, we already discussed this and the "free media" language has consensus. We are you re-litigating it? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Hunterm267...I see my outdent made it look like I was replying to your vote! but was actually just addressing the choice of wording. Regardless, I thank you for the expansion on this matter but also agree with Bus stop that this might not be understood as a lede issue unless we footnote it.--MONGO (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Obama birth certificate

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.

---

Is this level of detail really necessary for this article? I think not. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No, and it's original research based on a primary sources as far as I can tell.- MrX 🖋 16:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're not going to revert per BRD, we should notify the non-regular editor Schistocyte of this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: can you please explain why you believe the sentence was original research? Here is the verbaitim quote from the Hawaii DOH

"In 2001, the Hawai„i State Department of Health began computer-generating vital statistics records. Since then, its longstanding policy and practice has been to issue and provide only the computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth, and to not produce photocopies of actual records to fulfill requests for certified copies of certificates."

Several fact-checking websites mentioned this point, but I thought it was most appropriate to utilize the original source. If you would be more comfortable with another source, here is a quote from politifact that says essentially the same thing:

"So back to the claim that Gibbs lied about posting Obama's birth certificate on the Internet. WorldNetDaily is correct that the Obama campaign didn't post his original birth certificate on the Internet. But their suggestion that there is some significant difference between the two documents is wrong. They both prove the same thing. Maybe the original would identify the hospital where Obama was born, but that's irrelevant. The issue is what city, and therefore country, was he born. The document posted by the campaign proves Obama was born in Honolulu, according to Health Department officials. And that's really the central issue here.The Health Department says the "Certification of Live Birth" is Hawaii's version of a birth certificate." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/28/worldnetdaily/birthers-claim-gibbs-lied-when-he-said-obamas-birt/

— Schistocyte ^(talk) 17:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Schistocyte: Sorry, I jumped the gun. It is not original research. However, it is a bit too detailed for this article in my opinion.- MrX 🖋 17:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: No worries. Here's why I think it is important: Trump said on numerous occasions how proud he was that he got Obama to release his birth certificate (at one point saying it was "something he should have done a long time ago"). This is simply not true. Obama already released his birth certificate during the campaign, and he later had to petition the Hawaii DOH for them to go against their policy and release the original document to put an end to the questions. Obviously if there is not a consensus on including this point, then I want push for it. Thanks — Schistocyte ^(talk) 17:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to limit the coverage here to the essentials. It's really not necessary to prove that Trump made a false claim, since that's business as usual.- MrX 🖋 21:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is certainly an interesting detail, but it is undue in this BLP of Trump. We already link to the master article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and that's where it belongs. I also think we give too much space to this paragraph, compared with other elements of Trump's bio. I would cut it down to 4-5 lines max. — JFG ^talk 19:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

We should just say he made false claims A, B, C, and was a leader in promulgating Obama birther conspiracy theories, which sought to delegitimize and "other" the first African-American president. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

After some additional reflection I do think this pharagraph could be shortened and the content I was attempting to add probably is better suited in the article on the conspiracy theory itself. — Schistocyte ^(talk) 02:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds a WP:SOAPBOX or WP:OR discussion here -- voiced a pushing an editorial position of aiming for "just say he made false claims A, B, C, and was a leader in promulgating Obama birther conspiracy theories" -- on just personal agenda ? Wasn't the whole point in question about the short form being disliked and NOT accepted as a real birth certificate ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here? Sorry. — Schistocyte ^(talk) 05:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Schistocyte - The “We should just say he made false claims” etcetera is reading like choosing to push a SOAPBOX or personal agenda points. I then asked whether that article section is focused on demanding the long form. (Implication being that should have gotten attention.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Current paragraph on birtherism is too long for this bio, compared with other events covered.

Trump played a leading role in "birther" conspiracy theories that had been circulating since Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.[276][277] Beginning in March 2011, he publicly questioned Obama's citizenship and eligibility to serve as president.[278][279][280] Although the Obama campaign had released a copy of the "Certificate of Live Birth" in 2008,[281] Trump demanded to see the original "long-form" certificate.[278] Notably, the Hawaii Department of Health does not produce copies of original birth certificates when fulfilling a vital records request, as both documents contain the same fundamental information and thus both are legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawaii.[282] Trump later mentioned having sent investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but he did not follow up with any findings.[278] He also repeated a debunked allegation that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya.[283][284] When the White House later released Obama's long-form birth certificate,[285] Trump took credit for obtaining the document, saying "I hope it checks out."[286] His official biography mentions his purported role in forcing Obama's hand,[287] and he has defended his pursuit of the issue when prompted, later saying that his promotion of the conspiracy made him "very popular".[288] In 2011, he had called for Obama to release his student records, questioning whether his grades warranted entry into an Ivy League school.[289] He also claimed in his 2011 CPAC speech that Obama's classmates "don't know who he is".[290] When asked in 2015 whether he believed Obama was born in the United States, he said he did not want to discuss the matter further.[291][292] In September 2016, he publicly acknowledged Obama's birthplace and falsely claimed that the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign.[279] In late 2017, he continued to question the authenticity of the birth certificate in closed-door conversations with advisers.[293]

I would suggest to summarize it thus:

Starting in 2011, Trump was a major proponent of "birther" conspiracy theories alleging that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, questioning his citizenship and eligibility. When the White House released the "long-form" birth certificate from Hawaii, Trump took credit for forcing Obama's hand, and he stated during his presidential campaign that pushing the issue had made him "very popular". In September 2016, he publicly acknowledged Obama's birthplace and falsely claimed that the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 campaign. Trump had also questioned whether Obama's grades warranted entry into an Ivy League school.

Naturally, the most appropriate citations would be kept, but let's get agreement on a shorter text first. — JFG ^talk 23:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hillary's campaign did spread birtherism a bit. Not her personally, but it seems dodgy wording there and getting offtopic from birtherism into Hillaryism and gradeism at any rate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, it's a bit off-topic, but I was abiding by consensus #27, which is recent and unlikely to be overturned. The "gradeism" is significant as another angle of disparagement for the Trump–Obama rivalry. We could also use Trump's infamous "Obama will go down as the worst President ever", to which O. replied "At least I will go down as President". Yeah, that aged well… — JFG ^talk 05:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose in current form - I like the idea of tightening it up, but I don't like the language in its current form. It is vital that we retain language like "leading role in 'birther' conspiracy theories" and "publicly questioned Obama's citizenship and eligibility" and "[Trump said that] his promotion of the conspiracy made him 'very popular'" in the section, because these speak volumes about the kind of man Trump is. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: The proposed wording already includes most of what you deem vital. I have amended it to add the "citizenship and eligibility" part. Whether we say he "was a major proponent of" or "played a leading role in" sounds equivalent to me. — JFG ^talk 13:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the addition; however, I believe it needs to include all of the stuff I quoted. "Played a leading role in" is more significant than just "a major proponent." Trump was the primary figure in the birther movement, and he basically launched his campaign off the back of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

We disagree here, and I believe serious sources disagree as well. Correction 1: Trump was one of the primary figures of birtherism, there were plenty others, before and after him. Correction 2: Trump did not "launch his campaign off the back of birtherism"; the campaign happened 4 years later, and Obama's birthplace just happened to be evoked in a couple interviews, especially when Trump went after Cruz for being "Canadian" and McCain for being born in Panama. — JFG ^talk 20:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Scjessey - the reason why it is ‘vital’ just seems undesirable partisan SOAPBOX. “because these speak volumes about the kind of man Trump is” ... is not a suitable WP guide or policy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support with some suggestions

Starting in 2011, Trump was a major proponent of "birther" conspiracy theories alleging that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, questioning his citizenship and eligibility that falsely asserted that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and questioned his eligibility to serve as president.

I'm really not trying to WP:POV push, but I believe this is the current consensus[6] at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

I'd also remove "forced Obama's hand" Just say something like: Trump would later take credit for the White House's release a copy of Obama's original ("long-form") birth certificate in 2011. — Schistocyte ^(talk) 14:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support some shortening of the current paragraph. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Updated proposal

Starting in 2011, Trump was a major proponent of "birther" conspiracy theories alleging that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and questioned his eligibility to serve as president. Trump later took credit for pushing the White House to release the "long-form" birth certificate from Hawaii, and he stated during his presidential campaign that his stance had made him "very popular". In September 2016, he publicly acknowledged Obama's birthplace that Obama was born in the United States, and falsely claimed that the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 campaign.

Took a few suggestions into account and further simplified the wording. Awaiting more editor input before applying changes to the article. — JFG ^talk 15:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I like this version. We absolutely need to include this in the article - it was a major factor in his rising to political prominence - but we don't need to go into exhaustive detail. A slight tweak in the wording: I would say "he publicly acknowledged that Obama was born in Hawaii" rather than "he publicly acknowledged Obama's birthplace". --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging prior participants @Emir of Wikipedia, Markbassett, Schistocyte, and Scjessey: your input on this update? — JFG ^talk 16:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

President -> president. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 16:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support — Schistocyte ^(talk) 21:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support with MelanieN's tweak, although I'd be more inclined to say "the United States" instead of Hawaii, because some assholes like to pretend Hawaii wasn't part of the USA back then. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Better - though if using the NYT cited the language should just follow the cite and quote of Trump "born in the United States". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I updated the text with "he publicly acknowledged that Obama was born in the United States". I think we're good to go. Will insert in article soon. — JFG ^talk 16:23, 3 August 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.

"White supremacist support" v. "Alt-right support"

While a bunch of people very much wanted to make David Duke's support for Donald Trump a major issue, it wasn't terribly important. The alt-right as a whole was far more relevant. I propose renaming the section "White supremacist support" to be "Alt-right support". It's still not entirely clear whether alt-right will be a 2016-only buzzword, or if it will continue to be a long-standing political movement. The definition of the term isn't 100% clear either (though, as more secondary sources have been written in the aftermath of the election, it may be possible to write a fair article on the subject).

If I made this change, I would remove most of the detail about David Duke (particularly the shaggy-dog story about a "bad earpiece"), and add 2-3 sentences about what the alt-right was and how it supported Trump [7] [8] [9]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - White supremacists love Trump, and Trump has courted white supremacists. To rewrite the article to minimize these shocking facts would be... er... whitewashing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Ha, very punny! PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Any citation for "Trump has courted white supremacists"? Facts, not "dog-whistle" scaremongering from pundits or opponents. Genuinely interested if there's such an instance where Trump appealed to white supremacists, or expressed any white supremacy ideas himself. — JFG ^talk 08:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you think building a big beautiful wall to keep the Mexican rapists out is? What do you think the Muslim ban is? You really should read a variety of sources. Many American's limit themselves to sources that reinforce their existing views, while rejecting facts and information that upset those views. A variety of sources consider these comments as appealing to white supremacists:

“I think it's been very bad for Europe. I think Europe is a place I know very well and I think what has happened is very tough. It's a very tough situation, I just think it's changing the culture. It's a very negative thing for Europe.”

“Congratulations to Corey Stewart for his great victory for Senator from Virginia. Now he runs against a total stiff, Tim Kaine, who is weak on crime and borders, and wants to raise your taxes through the roof. Don’t underestimate Corey, a major chance of winning!”

“You have some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.”

And the consequence of all this?

• Hail Trump: White nationalists mark Trump win with Nazi salute
• The Year in Hate: Trump buoyed white supremacists in 2017, sparking backlash among black nationalist groups and this.
• From Nazis to supremacists, more bigots on US ballots, experts say
• Arthur J. Jones
• White Civil Rights Rally - MrX 🖋 11:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Please do not presume whether I am American (I am not), and which sources I read (plenty). To your examples: these are all people claiming that Trump's political positions amount to white nationalist support, or some fringe people on the far right hailing Trump. There are fringe people supporting any politician, nothing special here, except the scaremongering. What I was looking for are examples of Trump "courting white supremacists", i.e. asking directly for their support, congratulating them, inviting them on stage, praising their stance, etc. I have still not seen that. Please enlighten me. The wall: it's a disputed means to enhance border security, and "Mexicans" are not a race; nothing is "white supremacist" in this project. The "Muslim ban" never was a ban of Muslims, as confirmed 7-2 by the Supreme Court. Besides, religion is not a race. "Fine people on both sides": a disgusting remark, that's the closest I see to any support of white nationalists by Trump, although that's still a far cry from "courting" them. — JFG ^talk 06:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not presume that you are an American, nor did I say you are an American. I don't think anyone here is that interested in spoon feeding you even more evidence than we already have that a very large number of sources have said that it appears that Trump has engaged in demagogy to white supremacists and racists and that the effect is that the white supremacists and racist have been emboldened— to run for office; to march in the streets with Nazi flags; to proclaim that he holocaust never happened; to erect billboards that say "Make America White Again." and so on. I'm certainly not going to argue about whether Mexicans or Muslims are a race, as if it even matters. I'm also not entertaining straw men arguments or fringe definitions. - MrX 🖋 11:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Re:"spoon feeding": your disparagement is not helpful. Again, you are explaining that many sources express the view that Trump's candidacy has "emboldened" fringe elements in society, but you fail to show sources showing Trump "courting" those people. Please spoon-feed me that. — JFG ^talk 11:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The sources have been shown, and many more are readily available for anyone wishing to put forth the effort. Most people understand the sources. I think we're done here.- MrX 🖋 11:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot the quotes. "It's just changing the culture." That's a fact, immigration changes the culture. If you're American, you should know that, being a nation of immigrants. This statement doesn't say anything about race. "Congratulations to Corey Stewart": what's the point? Is Corey Stewart a white supremacist? "Fine people on both sides": I have already commented. Is this the single thing we have to support the idea that Trump is "courting white supremacists"? — JFG ^talk 06:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You're free to interpret sources however you want or reach whatever conclusions you want. Fortunately for Wikipedia, this is where the consensus process works well in ensuring that our content accurately reflects what reliable sources have written, and objective reality.- MrX 🖋 11:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this particular suggestion of "alt-right"; open to the idea of re-looking at this section title. The term "alt-right" is not widely understood; it's more inside baseball-type political jargon. I doubt it is widely used in the sources we have to support this article, and we should be working from the sources. Does an examination of the sources suggest a better title than "White supremacist"? (For that matter I think the term "White nationalist" is preferred over "White supremacist".) --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

White nationalism is white supremacist terminology, created by them as a euphemism for white supremacy (ADL). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Alt-right is not very well defined, and would tend to diminish the significance of this material. I have no objection to adding alt-right though. - MrX 🖋 19:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• "White supremacist" isn't very well defined either really. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There you go again.- MrX 🖋 19:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support-ish (changed to Delete, see below) – The section heading is unduly inflammatory, although far-right ideas did play a role in Trump's campaign. I would rename the section "Far right support", discuss the alt-right movement and the David Duke controversy, while cutting down the play-by-play anecdotal interview. A comparison with recent populist leaders such as Silvio Berlusconi would also be on point in this section. — JFG ^talk 20:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think a comparison to Berlusconi should be in the "Public profile" section. If there's sourced material, I'd be fine with it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment clearly other editors don't feel "alt-right" is well-understood by the general public, so I'm striking that specific suggestion. I will try to add 1-2 sentences about the alt-right (in relation to Trump) to that section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete section instead ? It’s not very important, and really not biographical (about his actions and things that made big impact on his life), so could simply be deleted. If it seems just a brief period when it was in the news, then it does not seem needed here. The Presidency article has Charlottesville, and I’m not seeing something as specific or comparable in noted events here. If it’s not deleted, maybe say both alt-right and white supremicist in the title. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as per Markbassett. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleting makes sense for the main bio. This is covered in the campaign article. — JFG ^talk 08:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't.- MrX 🖋 11:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Not biographical but obviously belongs in the Presidency article.--MONGO (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  First delete the Trump Corp. material, the golf course material, the casino material, the USFL failure, and the leveraged construction projects and then we can talk.- MrX 🖋 11:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per Markbassett, JFG, and MONGO. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The alt-right is a subgroup within the white supremacist movement, far-right conservatives embracing "racism, anti-Semitism and white supremacy" per ADL definition. Responding to Markbassett and JFG's remarks, it's not a matter of the past. It didn't end with the campaign (for that matter, did the 2016 campaign ever end or did it turn into the 2020 campaign on 1/20/17?) – see Charlottesville, sh*thole countries, etc. {Independent}. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Rather silly for the main BLP article. A conversation could be had at the campaign or president article though. PackMecEng (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete from this article, but is still important for the presidency article. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep As I said above, I am open to alternate titles for this section. But I don't agree with recent suggestions here to delete the entire section. It is one of the most widely commented-on aspects of his campaign and presidency and needs to be here in some form. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  As you said, campaign and Presidency so its much less biographical and much more presidential material.--MONGO (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  That doesn't mean it can't be here too. Plenty of things are about all three: campaign, presidency, and him personally. Including at least half of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per MelanieN. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete – On second thought, this is not the right article. Move relevant parts to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, Alt-right and Southern Poverty Law Center, if not already fully covered there. — JFG ^talk 16:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose / Keep. Coverage of this has been extensive and consistent for several years, and generally relates it to him personally rather than exclusively to his presidential campaign. For things like dry and less well-known policy positions, it would make sense to confine them purely to political or campaign articles; but racial / far-right things in particular are defining aspects of his public image as an individual, and therefore need to be on his personal article as well. --Aquillion (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - per JFG. Jdcomix (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• *Oppose per Mr. X.. Sources clearly shown.Casprings (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

We should have only one official website in the infobox

I've never ever seen an article with more than one external link in the official website (note that it isn't plural and has no plural option) parameter of the infobox. This article includes three, including no less than two Twitter accounts. I believe we have a long-standing policy on not linking to people's social media accounts in the infobox, but only to one "official website". I propose that we only link to one official website in this infobox and remove social media accounts. --Tataral (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I second that suggestion. A Twitter account is not a web page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tataral: Do you have a link to the long-standing policy? Also pretty much every modern past president's article has more than one link in the info box. So it is not about the number of links. PackMecEng (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Closest I can find is WP:Twitter-EL specifically "As an external link: ☒ Generally no. Exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other Web presence; or is known for their Twitter activity" I think it is fair to say he is known for his twitter activity... Past that could probably dump the WH Twitter though. PackMecEng (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

That policy relates to the external links section, not the infobox as discussed here. I have no problem with including a link to his realDonaldTrump Twitter account in that section. --Tataral (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither does #Current consensus #9. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

From a quick dig in the archives looks like this was brought up almost a year ago with consensus to include the links.[10] PackMecEng (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely keep Twitter link to @realDonaldTrump, because Trump's continuous "policy by tweeting" is one of the most notable characteristics of his presidency. If we keep only one of three, this should be the one. Of course, the official links to the White House and @POTUS can remain in external links. On the other hand, they do no harm in the infobox either. — JFG ^talk 20:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that they should be in the article, but in External Links, not the infobox. --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: and which link would you keep in the infobox if we end up keeping only one? — JFG ^talk 00:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The website, obviously. That's what the infobox says: "website". Both twitter accounts can go in external links.--MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The web site belongs to the White House, not to Trump personally. We're not listing amazon.com as the web site of Jeff Bezos. Trump's closest thing to a personal web site, now that his campaign is over, is indeed his Twitter feed of daily utterances. — JFG ^talk 01:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's the Trump page at the White House. And if anyone wants to get to @RealDonaldTrump, there is a link to it on that webpage. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a requirement that a website must be privately owned by the subject to qualify as "official website" for the purposes of this infobox. For a head of state or government, an official government website (such as whitehouse.gov) is usually considered the "official website". The point of including an official website in the infobox is to give the readers the opportunity to read what the subject has to say about himself (especially in the form of a biography), and he can also use that website to link to his social media accounts. --Tataral (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that there should only be one external link in the infobox, but I was on the losing side of that debate when it last came up. (I'll try to find a link). A Twitter feed is indeed not a website.- MrX 🖋 20:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude from infobox, but absolutely have it in the external links section. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Walk of Fame vandalism

Following the destruction of Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on July 25, Danlev added a sentence discussing the repeated vandalism.[11] The content was removed today by Galobtter[12] and restored by me[13] because I thought it had been discussed. Mandruss alerted my to my mistake and I have now self-reverted to open this discussion. In fact, a separate discussion was held at Talk:Protests against Donald Trump#Hollywood Walk of Fame, concluding that the repetition of incidents was notable enough for inclusion at the protests article. Now the question is whether it's notable enough for inclusion in this BLP. Opinions? — JFG ^talk 22:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Include per my edit summary: "One isolated incident would not be worth mentioning, but repeated destructions of Trump's star are notable." — JFG ^talk 22:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - On one hand, it's pretty trivial, but on the other hand, a short sentence doesn't seem totally WP:UNDUE. If we do include it, we should omit the specific dates. Nobody's going to care about that detail in 10 years.- MrX 🖋 22:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Right. I would rephrase thus: The star was repeatedly vandalized since Trump's election campaign, and it was twice completely destroyed and rebuilt. — JFG ^talk 23:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose including anything about this incident - and I say that as someone who has been working on adding it to the Protests against Donald Trump and Hollywood Walk of Fame articles. We already have a subsection and a couple of paragraphs about protests against him, that's enough. We don't need to detail every one. TMI for a biography. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• IncludeOf course, especially since its happened twice now and a brawl went on there the other day too.--MONGO (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's no way this bit of one-day trivia is getting in. Nobody cares. And seriously, we're debating having this while at the same time fielding calls to remove the section on Trump's penchant for Nazis very fine people? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - not Biographical kind of material, not significant action by him or making big difference to his life. It might be appropriate for the article on protests against Donald Trump but WP:OFFTOPIC for here. Markbassett (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Possibly include May be more appropriate for Trump Derangement Syndrome to more fully flesh out a profile of TDS-sufferers and what they're willing to do to vent their angst. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Incredibly trivial. The same editors who vociferously opposed the inclusion of content about his administration's policy of separating some 3000 children from their parents now feel that vandalism of his Walk of Fame star merits inclusion? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't here for that debate but since this is an article about the man, not his presidency, it would make sense not to include the controversy over enforcing federal law at the southern border. The illegal immigration section is a perfect spot for all that noise in Presidency of Donald Trump. The man's Walk of Fame star vandalism incidents make sense to be included in his article. Where else would it go? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about the man, not his Walk of Fame star. Powerful argument. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Wrong article talk page ~Awilley (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Right on second thought, this is definitely meant for the Trump Derangement Syndrome article. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Is there a Reliable Source relating this incident to Trump Derangement Syndrome? If not, it can't go there just because you think (WP:OR) that any strong action to protest Trump amounts to TDS. The Walk of Fame Star incident is already in Protests against Donald Trump and Hollywood Walk of Fame. Those are the only articles where it belongs. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "Strong action"? Resorting to criminal mischief is a bit more than just strong action. Political Insider reports the liberal was indeed afflicted with TDS.[14] The Hayride described the criminal's TDS as "terminal".[15] The #2 cable host in the country also linked the crime to TDS.[16] I'm not wedded to the inclusion there, but it's a better spot for it than here, that's for sure. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Can you please stop referring to individuals, including your fellow Wikipedia editors, with terms such as "the liberal"? It sort of betrays your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Also thepoliticalinsider is nowhere near being a reliable source. It's basically garbage. I haven't even heard of thehayride before, but it's apparently some nutzoid blog which spreads conspiracy theories and 4chan rumors. So even a bigger pile of garbage. I think you've basically just made the case against yourself here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC) The sources call the criminal a "liberal". I don't know why you think being called a liberal is an insult. There's nothing wrong with being a lib. I'm uncomfortable with your attacks on the media though, because a free and fair press is so important, and dismissing the fourth estate as "nutzoid" is a chilling assault on journalism. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC) I've just wiped the coffee off my keyboard after this hilarious comment. The Political Insider is not "the media" in any recognizable sense of the word. It is an extreme right wing site that peddles bullshit to poorly-educated mouth breathers and innocent people who have been led astray by the right wing media echo chamber. I'm particularly amused by your defense of a free and fair press, since you evidently have a problem identifying such entities. Thank you for making me laugh today! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - too trivial and undue for this general of an article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. Trivial relative to his overall biography. Even if he were just a movie star, it would probably still be too trivial to include; for the POTUS it's silly to suggest it deserves space here. --Aquillion (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Campaign rally photo

Re: [17][18]

Should this photo be included in the article?

• Oppose - Low reader value. A generic photo of a stadium crowd; nothing in it distinguishes it from the crowd at, say, a Cincinnati Cyclones hockey game; in fact we're taking the photographer's word for what it portrays. Conveys no information except that Trump attracted a large crowd to a rally, which is unremarkable considering he was elected president. A photo of a small crowd at a Trump campaign rally would be more worthy of inclusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Makes no sense to add it to this article. If it was an article on that particular gathering, yes. But just for the Trump bio? No. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Trump's campaign was notable for his rally crowds and occasional barbs thrown at opponents being unable to attract people. Illustrating this with a "generic photo" of a stadium packed with Trump supporters is appropriate. Questioning the photographer's description of the picture is an unwarranted assumption of bad faith, and we could easily find a similar picture if there were any serious doubts about authenticity. The proposal to illustrate Trump's campaign rallies by a small crowd because that would be exceptional, therefore worthy of inclusion, sounds to me like the opposite of what we do in Wikipedia: we document the generic over the exceptional. — JFG ^talk 04:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  No assumption of bad faith. I didn't mean to suggest that the photo may be a fraud—there's no doubt Trump had rallies like that, so why would such a photo need to be faked? However, we are in fact taking the photog's word for it because there is nothing in the photo to identify it as a campaign rally, let alone a Trump rally, and I was merely using that to emphasize the generic nature of the photo.
  I might feel different about a photo that actually showed Trump in it, or at least had something to identify it as a Trump rally. (Before I'm "corrected" on that point, I now see two TRUMP campaign signs near the right edge of the photo, one of which can be read only with maximum zoom. I'm speaking of something that doesn't require such close inspection.) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The sea of MAGA hats needs no close inspection, even to my tired eyes… I do agree that we could use another picture. — JFG ^talk 16:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We know those are MAGA hats only because we accept that it's a Trump rally, so that's a circular argument (or some equally invalid logical fallacy; I should spend the time to learn the names of these things). Crowds at sports events often have a disproportionate amount of team colors. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - It doesn't belong aside the section linked to above (Campaign Rhetoric), and I can't find a place in this article where it does. --HunterM267 ^talk 04:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternate rally pictures

From the existing stuff on Wikimedia, I'd suggest one of those. Hard to find a really good view, because if you focus on Trump, you can't see the crowd, and if you show the crowd, Trump is just a dot. — JFG ^talk 16:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Same objections. No material difference. Find one with a 30-foot (9.1 m) TRUMP 2016 banner behind the stage and we can talk. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A big banner says "hey, Trump held campaign rallies". A big crowd says "hey, Trump attracted large crowds". Which of these two true assertions is more notable? — JFG ^talk 17:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

My preference would be an image that has both characteristics. Given the false binary you present, probably the latter is more notable. Also completely generic. The concept that we should avoid images that "could be anything" is not one I invented, and my second choice is no image.
Let's assume neither of us is going to be swayed by the other, shall we? This is not a winnable debate. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been trying to sway you, just helping each other express the reasons for picking a picture or another, or none. Certainly if we could find a picture with both a large crowd and highly-visible Trump signage, that would be a keeper. I haven't seen this combo on MediaWiki yet, except very blurred ones. Time to search the wide wild web… — JFG ^talk 20:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Inauguration image

This image of Trump being sworn in was removed with the edit summary "no need for two inauguration images in the same article". But the other inauguration image, which had been added only hours earlier, was also removed. I think the original inauguration image should be restored. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The other inauguration image to which I referred was, and still is, at Donald Trump#Family. If you want to propose moving it to a different section, propose away, but we don't need two inauguration images. Incidentally, the image I removed caused minor but significant layout problems where it was, seen here, being taller than the section containing it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Birtherism in the lede?

Did I miss something? Why isn't Trump's promotion of Obama birther conspiracy theories in the lede? That's how he started his career in politics prior to his 2016 run. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall it ever being in the lede, but I agree there is a good argument it should be. Few would argue Trump would not be president, were it not for his leading role in birtherism. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Huh, I could've sworn I got it into the article or at the very least pushed for its inclusion at some point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Off topic, personal ~Awilley (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"I could have sworn I got it into the article or at least pushed for its inclusion at some point." Well that sure sounds like an admission of POV pushing if I ever heard one.--MONGO (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm I thought it was in there as well. We could always ask Volunteer Marek, who I hear has made an edit or two here. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"Few would argue Trump would not be president, were it not for his leading role in birtherism"...I would argue against that, so count me as one of the few. Perhaps he was elected President mainly because his opponent was perceived to be unworthy of the position, so unworthy in fact that Trump had a wider electoral college margin of victory than did Kennedy, GW Bush either time or Nixon in 68 and Wilson in 1916 to name a few. The narrative that those that voted for Trump must have been bigots is old, tired, insulting and wrong.--MONGO (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

" Trump had a wider electoral college margin of victory than..." - so what? How does that relate to the people who VOTED for Trump and what motivated them? You know, the popular vote? And if you got sources for the part about "narrative that those that voted for Trump must have been bigots is old, tired, insulting and wrong", let's see'em. Because what I see is the confirmation of that narrative more and more each day. Hell, you see it here on Wikipedia each day.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that another editor might be POV pushing, MONGO, followed by leaping right into deep end of the POV pushing swimming pool yourself. Your analysis of electoral college margins of victory may be accurate but has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump's well-known advocacy of birtherism. Your analysis based on your personal opinion of the bigotry (or lack thereof) of Trump voters is far less objective and even more dramatically off topic. The question before us is whether espousing birtherist conspiracy theories was or was not the major issue in Trump's participation in public policy debates in the years right before his presidential campaign. I think that a reading of the reliable news sources published before his campaign announcement says "yes it was", and that nothing that reliable historians have written since then contradicts the key role that birtherist advocacy played in Trump's life story at that time. I support a sentence or two of NPOV content about his advocacy of birtherism in the lead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You have it a little wrong here. "The question before us is whether espousing birtherist conspiracy theories was or was not the major issue in Trump's participation in public policy debates in the years right before his presidential campaign." This is not the presidency article, this is his main BLP. You should be asking if it is a major issue for his whole life. Which it is not. PackMecEng (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

He did reject that eventually of course or will we need 2-3 more sentences to mention that fact or shall that be omitted? That the issue will eventually wind up being an entire paragraph if we adhere to NPOV I oppose adding it.--MONGO (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"He did reject that eventually" - yeah, I think the key word there is "eventually". And it's not really true. He "rejected it" the same way he weasels all his controversial statements. He makes them. He gets criticized for it. He then claims "of course I didn't actually mean it". He then goes back and says the same damn thing again [19]. He basically makes one statement for his critics and one statement for his base and hopes no one notices. And indeed, the base "knows what he really means", so they cool with it (you see this on Wikipedia among other places) and most of the mainstream press is dumb enough to run with "oh, look, he's becoming better!" wishful thinking spineless we-still-need-access-to-the-white-house narrative.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, please don't do the same thing that MONGO, above, was already doing. Stick to a discussion of facts and sources. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Not notable enough for the lead. The section in the body mentioning it is enough. PackMecEng (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Not lede-worthy, unless we want to turn this short biography into a laundry list of everything controversial Trump ever said. — JFG ^talk 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Strawman. No one's proposing turning this NON-SHORT biography into any kind of a laundry list. The proposal is just to add ONE controversial thing that Trump, not just SAID, but repeatedly pushed over and over and over again, which propelled him into the political spotlight. Try again with a better, more relevant argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, his other activities had nothing to do with him becoming well known/political since this "propelled him into the political spotlight".--MONGO (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, his other activities, like calling Mexicans rapists or talking about grabbin' "pussy" or mocking the disabled after a disabled reported called him out on lying about Muslims. Yes, there were also other activities which propelled him into the political spotlight. And yes, these should be in the article (though perhaps not the lede) as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Try again with established sources stating that Trump's support of birtherism in 2011 was a key factor in his electoral win in 2016. — JFG ^talk 13:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs to be in there. It's a no-brainer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't belong in there. It's a no-brainer. (see how this works?) — JFG ^talk 13:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"That's how he started his career in politics prior to his 2016 run" Already covered. Also, sources. Ooodddddllllleeesssss of them. Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Strange. I thought he "started his career in politics" by purchasing full-page ads about foreign policy in 1987. Or by running for president in 2000. Or by becoming a TV celebrity. Or by bemoaning the Iraq War. Or by tweeting all day. — JFG ^talk 14:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but he didn't get any traction until he started pushing the Birther conspiracy. That and his comments about Mexicans being rapists are two things that resonated with the people who became his supporters and what made him viable as a candidate in the GOP. Oh look! Both these things are related to... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... race!

I get it. The gate keepers intend on using the "consensus required" DS provision to keep out ANYTHING that might reflect negatively on Trump, no matter how notable it is, how widely covered it is and of how much lasting importance. Only a washed and cleansed, squeaky clean image of Trump is allowed. Even if these things that reflect negatively on him are things he did, things he stands by, things he is proud of, and which are the exact things that make him popular among his supporters. This makes the article POV and constitutes WP:GAMEing (granted, the ridiculous restriction is so dumb that it practically begs for this kind of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: “he didn't get any traction until he started pushing the Birther conspiracy“ – that's your OR. In fact, this stance cut both ways; only Trump thinks it helped him at the polls. Re: "what made him viable as a candidate in the GOP" – LOL, I'm old enough to remember when Trump was a laughable candidate, totally mocked as a clown by everybody and their dog. The whole Never Trump GOP crowd rejected him. For the rest, please avoid aspersions on the motives of your fellow editors. You know better than stoop that low. — JFG ^talk 14:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Not OR. Here you go, four historians: "Bill Moyers and four historians dissect the big lie Trump rode to power: the Birther lie. ". I mean, what else turned him from a "laughable candidate" (which he was at one point) into a viable one? It was either the Birther thing, or the "Mexicans are rapists" thing. Everything else (drain the swamp, lock her up, asking Russia to hack the election) came later, once he was already the top contender in the GOP field (I assume you're being sarcastic with the "old enough to remember" quip, since that was, like two years ago). And I note you haven't answered the question - if it wasn't that that made him viable, what was it?

And I'm not casting aspersions on anyone's motivates. I'm describing observable behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

So, according to your theory, Trump was a laughable candidate from his June 2015 announcement all the way until Super Tuesday in March 2016, but he suddenly became credible and won the nomination because he had peddled birtherism in 2011? Makes absolutely no sense, unless he played a Marty McFly on us all. Actually, I remember he peddled birtherism on his "Canadian" opponent Ted Cruz. <sarc> Surely that was racist too? </sarc> — JFG ^talk 16:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

On top of that, out of respect for your sources, I just wasted 23 minutes of my life listening to the Bill Moyers video you cited. None of the interviewees state that birtherism was the reason Trump won. They vaguely assert that the United States are a racist country, that a black president must be illegitimate due to some caricature from the 1870s, and that Trump is racist because he promoted "law and order", which automatically means blaming "black and brown crime". Let's call it opinion; Trump is indeed a sort of Rorschach test. — JFG ^talk 16:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I like the title of that piece...it leaves no easter eggs about it.--MONGO (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I still don't see how his birther comments can be condensed enough in the lede to satisfy NPOV and UNDUE.--MONGO (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Leave it out of the lead. Not lead worthy for a BLP that spans 72 years; would constitute WP:UNDUE. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• I'd say leave it out of the lead. It seems like undue there but if neutrally presented I could be happy with its inclusion, a small comment only and a link to the detail in the aticle. I don't support any inclusion in the lede that his support for birtherism or mexican rapists were key factors in his electoral win in 2016 Govindaharihari (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Govindaharihari, let's hope he didn't actually support Mexican rapists. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Just to be clear, I have at no point argued for the inclusion of any text that says birtherism was a key factor behind his 2016 win. And I think the discussions above along those lines are not helpful and are borderline WP:NOTFORUM discussions that will go nowhere. All I've argued for is that the lede should note that Trump gained notoriety over his promotion of Barack Obama birther conspiracy theories and possibly that this was what he was notorious for in politics before he started his 2016 campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with the first part of your comment but not that that the lede should note that Trump gained notoriety over his promotion of Barack Obama birther conspiracy theories, that possition is imo undue in the lede. Trump gained notoriety , he has been notorious all his life. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• It's maybe worded a bit clunkily. 'Stirred controversy' perhaps rather than 'gained notoriety'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) And just to be even more clear, this entire thread has been turned into a partisan shit show by people with deeply entrenched positions. I'm seriously fed up with this bullshit. The original question was valid. There are plenty of sources that say Trump's embrace of birtherism was key to establishing a base with which to launch a campaign. The argument it isn't biographically relevant is staggeringly bizarre, given that the result of his birtherism was the presidency, which everyone agrees is his most significant biographical achievement. I mean, come on. The twisted logic some of you employ just defies explanation. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• given that the result of his birtherism was the presidency - sorry matie, that is a step too far position. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

What does sound like "twisted logic" is the assertion that birtherism made Trump president. @Volunteer Marek and Scjessey: I'd love to see some of the "ooodddddllllleeesssss of sources" making that claim. Please help me out. — JFG ^talk 17:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• If the lede can include highlights of his presidency like the embassy move to Jerusalem, why wouldn't this one thing, which no one can deny is important (whether he took it back or not), be in the lead? The whole "this is part of the presidency article" is undercut by an entire paragraph in the lead, "During Trump’s presidency,...". It's still a big thing in the media (I know, the losing lying fake news media), in recent articles like here and here, "The movement, if you care to dignify it by calling it one, is Birtherism 2.0". And here is an academic, peer-reviewed bit, "The accumulated effect of the constant bombardment of simplistic, emotional, symbolic, stereotypical propaganda results not just in the development of apparatuses of propaganda but also in altered public expectations. Many members of the public were ready and willing to be lead through Trump's media antics, such as his birtherism, name-calling, self-aggrandizement, and many bigoted and sexist remarks", Wimberly, Cory (2018). "Trump, Propaganda, and the Politics of Ressentiment". Journal of Speculative Philosophy. 32 (1): 179–199.. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)