Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #Trim second paragraph in lead
• #RfC: oldest and wealthiest
• #RfC: False statements

Current consensus

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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 (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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 (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: oldest and wealthiest

Should the lead section mention that Trump is the "oldest and wealthiest" president? — JFG ^talk 15:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The current, longstanding phrase in paragraph 2 of the lead includes:

He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, and the first without prior military or government service.

I would suggest replacing this with:

He became the first president without prior military or government service.

In recent informal discussions, some editors have said those qualifiers are unimportant statistics best left to specialized articles such as List of presidents of the United States by age and List of Presidents of the United States by net worth instead of the lead section of Trump's BLP. It was also argued that "oldest" is ageist and "wealthiest" is vulgar, and that it all was "irrelevant trivia". In support of the inclusion, it was argued that those facts were well-covered during Trump's campaign, and that similar statistics appear in other presidents' biographies. This RfC aims to resolve the disagreement. — JFG ^talk 15:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey: oldest and wealthiest

Please express your preference with Keep to preserve the status quo or with Delete to remove the "oldest and wealthiest" qualifiers. A brief rationale is welcome here. Longer arguments should go to the #Discussion: oldest and wealthiest section.

• Delete - I remember "oldest" and "wealthiest" were talking points during the election, but I honestly don't think they are biographically significant. Nor are they defining characteristics of his presidency. This is exactly the kind of trimming I would like to see more of in this article. Less is always more. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete – While Trump's lack of military or government experience is relevant to his presidency, and apparently unprecedented in the USA, his age and his wealth are mere trivia. Reagan was old too, and Washington was filthy rich for his day. — JFG ^talk 17:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete not at all defining characteristics and not lead-worthy, especially compared to his actions in office, though including in article body wouldn't be so bad. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep to preserve the status quo, no real reason to mess with a long-standing 2 year norm and what little stability this article has. Also, oldest and wealthiest seem to follow precedents of identifying characteristics in past presidents such as age remarks for Ronald Reagan or youth and religion of John F. Kennedy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

* Keep - this is interesting information. He is a lot older than his immediate predecessors (though only slightly older than Reagan was as President). He also seems to be a lot wealthier than other President, according to the linked table. This is worth noting.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete on second thoughts. These are simply relative measures that will be out of date sooner or later. He is not likely to be the oldest President for long, given the increases in longevity. Wealth is hard to measure over time, and this is not particularly notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - There is a long tradition to identify presidents according to records they hold in regards to their presidency. Ronald Reagan was widely reported to be the oldest back then, James Buchanan as the only bachelor to hold the office, John F. Kennedy as being the youngest to be elected and the only Catholic to be president, James Garfield as the last to be born in a log cabin etc. This sort of trivia exists for most presidents. One argument for deletion is that this information is well known to most readers because they refer to the current president, whose wealth and age are widely discussed in the media, but removing it now for being banal only to add it a few years later, when the information won't seem as obvious sounds unnecessary to me. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per JFG. Gandydancer (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - trivia. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The article Inauguration of Donald Trump conspicuously doesn't mention it, but that is not a reason to remove it here, because Presidency of Donald Trump#Transition period and inauguration mentions it (it is a WP:Summary style article). If anything, the Inauguration article should be changed to mention it in its lead. I believe that it should be kept here when similar leads, most notably that of Ronald Reagan, include such information. wumbolo ^^^ 21:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Although Reagan was much more well known for being the oldest president than Trump was, it still keeps things simple for the reader. The statements are neither trivial, nor do they add unnecessary fluff to the article that isn't notable or noteworthy.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Neither of these items has received nearly as much attention in the reliable sources as the rest of the content in the lead section. I understand these superlatives have historical significance, but I highly doubt Trump will be known in 5, 10, 50 years for being the wealthiest or oldest president. He will likely be known for bringing his business background to the White House, but that's something substantially different. To be clear, however, I fully support having this material in the body of our article. R2 (bleep) 19:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Wealth qualifier is unconfirmed. No reliable source. Gerntrash (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Oldest but delete wealthiest (Summoned by bot) His age is undeniable, his wealth is in dispute. Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: oldest and wealthiest

@JFG: - some editors have opined that "oldest" is ageist and "wealthiest" is vulgar - Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't see more than one editor saying either.[1] I'd ask that you edit that for accuracy. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You are right, and in fairness only one editor highlighted the comparison with Reagan, Kennedy and Roosevelt's biographies.[2] The point is to show that those were arguments advanced in the discussion. I'll edit to avoid referring to a particular editor or group thereof. — JFG ^talk 15:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think oldest should be included because it was a common description for WH Harrison and Reagan. The "prior military or government service" is clumsy. All previous presidents had held either elected office as a congressman, senator or governor, or had served in the Cabinet or were generals. If Trump had worked as an election official, or had been in the National Guard, his lack of experience would still be relevant. Also, not sure if we was the wealthiest, particularly if inflation is taken into account. We don't even know if he has a positive net worth. TFD (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think "prior military or government service" was used in the media at the time. Does "government service" have a special meaning for Americans? Because I would have thought "military service" was "government service", and "government service" could include working as a clerk in the sanitation department.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I vaguely recall some discussion about this. Military service may be government service in some sense, but that doesn't mean Americans would interpret the term that way. We would normally think of people working in city halls, state capitals, and Washington, not in military bases and foreign countries. The military take direction from their government but serve their country, and they are not the same thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I also vaguely recall a discussion but I think it was more about whether what elected officials do should be called "service." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we could lift this ambiguity by replacing "service" with "experience". The target articles is called List of Presidents of the United States by previous experience. — JFG ^talk 19:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I rephrased the sentence to make it adhere more closely to the sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think, in general, statements about the "oldest" should be avoided. Given the steady increase in human longevity, we should expect US Presidents to be increasingly older and to live longer (like Jimmy Carter). This is not notable and not worth noting. However, in Trump's case he is significantly older than Obama etc. There has been speculation that this could be a factor in his Presidency, and he could be or become medically unfit.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jack Upland: There'll be older presidents sure, but if we're just going to have a list of presidents by age anyway, we might as well make mention of it in the current president's article. It's more about simplicity than anything in my opinion. It's not like the US presidents articles are filled with tons of trivia as is.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I think those terms shouldn't stay in the paragraph, because belongs to the Peacock terms [3] and afect to the neutral point of view.--AnbyG (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to prevent auto-archive of this section? starship.paint (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Done.[4] See {{DNAU}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: False statements

A recent discussion was archived without reaching a definite conclusion. Based on comments from various editors there, I am formally suggesting a change of the current wording, which was selected in the prior RfC about this subject, and is in my opinion unnecessarily wordy. — JFG ^talk 15:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Current version:

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.

Proposed version:

Fact-checkers have documented an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during Trump's campaign and presidency.

— JFG ^talk 15:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Amended proposal:

Fact-checkers have documented that Trump made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.

I am putting forward this amended proposal following remarks by several editors in the first day of the RfC. — JFG ^talk 11:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey: false statements

Please express your preference to Support or Oppose the proposed change, with a brief rationale. Longer arguments should go to the #Discussion: false statements section.

• Oppose - Trump's falsehoods are a defining characteristic of his presidency. Without gazing too deeply into the crystal ball, I think the Trump presidency will forever be associated with an astonishing level of mendacity. As such, I like the way the existing text spells this out a bit more assertively. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  What happened to Less is always more?[5] Seriously, I think a shorter sentence is more impactful in asserting the issue. — JFG ^talk 15:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Not at the expense of missing something important, obviously. Nothing is more important to Trump's biography than the thing that has defined him, and that's the fact that he likes to tell porky pies. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

In your proposed version the issue is that someone somewhere made a whole bunch of false or misleading statements while Trump was president. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have addressed this deficiency in the amended proposal above. — JFG ^talk 11:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Still oppose, I'm afraid. The existing text remains superior. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Too soon/Oppose - The passage in question is the result of an RfC that was open for more than a month a mere few months ago, focused exclusively on that little bit of content, and received over 10,000 words from over 30 editors. One of the precious few editors willing to spend their time doing uninvolved closes spent a considerable amount of it assessing that consensus and writing the close. The length of the passage was pointed out at the beginning of the proposal for it, lest anyone fail to consider it, and yet the passage received wide support. Thus the length argument has been duly rejected and it's not constructive to raise it again hoping for a different outcome. This is not how we should be spending our limited time. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The proposed wording obscures the fact that Trump made the false statements. That deviates far from almost every reliable source that has reported on the subject. We must be clear and direct. - MrX 🖋 16:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I also oppose the amended proposal because it shifts the focus to fact checkers. I would support Neutrality's proposal, or something like "Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency." - MrX 🖋 11:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support The laundry lists of Trumps alleged deceptions is what is unprecedented.--MONGO (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons states by Scjessey, Mandruss, and MrX, but I would favor a shorter "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency, at a level unprecedented in American politics" if someone proposed that. Neutrality^talk 18:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality - the statement "at a level unprecedented in American politics" would have to be attributed, otherwise we'd be treading in SYNTH territory or opinion rather than fact. The kind of coverage Trump has gotten is what's unprecedented, otherwise I would imagine the same could be said of a few former presidents. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the reliable sources (not opinion pieces) directly support the "unprecedented" language, and this is a matter of fact rather opinion. Neutrality^talk 17:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support — the current version attributes the assessment of unprecedented mendacity to the media, which plays into the "fake news" narrative (itself mendacious), while the proposed version attributes the assessment to fact-checkers. That said, Neutrality's proposed language would be even better. soibangla (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Doesn’t matter — Devoting so much contributor time to trivial matters like this contributes to outsiders’ perceptions of Wikipedia as largely dysfunctional on controversial subjects. Time to move on. Greg L (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too vague. I support Neutrality's version over both of the proposed versions by OP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - let’s not revisit it yet again and so soon. The change in portrayal also seems unnecessary and not preceded by groundwork. I think lead edits like this one should be a discussion first to show interests and concerns, not this every time jump straight to an A/B choice RFC that has not done substantial prep work in TALK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support — the new version is shorter, to the point, and more neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons stated by MrX, Scjessey, Mandruss, and Soibangla. I also think that Neutrality's version would be even better. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Following several remarks about the clarity of the sentence, I have amended the proposed text. @Scjessey, Mandruss, MrX, Neutrality, Snooganssnoogans, Markbassett, and Space4Time3Continuum2x: Could you reconsider your !votes in light of that? — JFG ^talk 11:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No. The current longer version is accurate while ascribing the conclusion "unprecedented" to fact-checkers is not. I don't think that at this stage we need to point out that "fact-checkers documented" and "the media described" but, if we do it, we should do it accurately. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This amended proposal also does not work for me for the reasons that Space4Time addressed above. I prefer my proposal above. Neutrality^talk 14:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No, since mine is a process objection. The hard-won consensus content should be considered good enough that we can better spend this time on other things. That will always be my position in situations like this. Thanks for the ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support for conciseness. — JFG ^talk 11:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  I would also support "Media and academics have documented that…", per discussion below following Starship.paint's comments. — JFG ^talk 08:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to above proposed version - to say that Fact-checkers ... documented ... an unprecedented number is inaccurate. As one can see from the sources already in the article at Donald Trump#False statements (that's 305-315 at the time of this post, none of the sources describing unprecedented are fact-checkers. [6] / [7] [8] / [9] [10] / [11] / [12] / [13] / [14] / [15] Rather, they are academics or the media. I would instead add to the lede that The statements have been documented by fact-checkers; academics and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Alternatively, Neutrality's version is also okay. starship.paint (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  After discussion with JFG below in the Discussion section, a version I would support is Media and academics have documented that Trump made an unprecedented number of false and misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. starship.paint (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Honestly, I don't think the difference is that large between the two version, but while we're here, the proposed version has a small edge over the current one. This is mainly because it's more concise and because saying that something "was described by the media" gives fodder to the "fake news" crowd who will claim that this is a conspiracy against the president by the news media, rather than demonstrable and well documented facts. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - it says what needs to be said succinctly and in compliance with NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Neutrality offers a good choice for wording and Starship gives some good advise as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - It's important to stay neutral. The current way seems like it's "Bashing" Trump. I don't care if you like or hate the man, the wording needs to be neutral.Gregnator (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Account^ created on the day the vote was cast. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - current wording is clearer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - If the wording must be more precise, Neutrality's proposal is the most favorable and accurate. Teammm ^talk
  _email 01:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the amended wording is less wordy and more neutral; yet still tries to convey the same meaning without trying to color the reader's opinion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Conveys the same information more concisely and with more punch, which is always a good thing in such a dense article. Also slightly reduces the Trump-versus-the-media framing, which is contrary to our core policies. R2 (bleep) 19:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: the original language is preferable; it's less weasely and matches sources better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I prefer the original wording. The new proposal obscures the fact that Trump made the false statements, as noted by MrX. --Tataral (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The original wording looks to reflect the sourcing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – The section itself needs rewriting for less-wooden style, to indicate depth of issue without details and statistics that already have an article devoted to them. Trump’s cavalier attitude toward facts, in the real estate development scene (Bonwit Teller site, Trump International Toronto) as well as during his presidency, could be summarized with one or two full-length sentences.Jessegalebaker (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: false statements

JFG, you made this proposal. Can you explain your decision to limit the description of an unprecedented number to fact-checkers, when the body of the article (and the sources) doesn't actually say that fact-checkers have said that? starship.paint (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The original sentence says three things: 1) fact-checkers have documented a bunch of false and misleading statements by Trump; 2) the magnitude and raw count of false and misleading statements is unprecedented; 3) media have been pounding on this issue. My proposed version aims to simplify this state of affairs, and the original long-winded phrase, by focusing on points 1 and 2. You raise the issue that it's only media and academics that have used the "unprecedented" qualifier, I wasn't aware of that, and I'm pretty sure we can find fact-checker sources that use similar language. If I'm mistaken, then perhaps we should replace "unprecedented" with some other qualifier (staggering? unusual? unfathomable? just large?), but that would be a different discussion. — JFG ^talk 19:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you want to simplify the sentence, but it seems it has lost its original meaning. I think fact-checkers are a subset of the media, and I don’t think there is very many of them that actively track Trump, probably less than seven? So I don’t see why we need to focus on fact-checkers when the wider media, plus the academics, have already given their descriptions. That’s already assuming you can find enough fact-checker sources to establish DUE weight. I note that there are two fact checker sources above (Kessler/Toronto’s Dale) but instead of putting unprecedented in their voice, they chose to quote other people. starship.paint (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it’s basically three stating overall totals - Politifact of Tampa Bay Times, FactCheck.org of Annenberg center, and the Fact Checker of the Washington Post. The Toronto Star is also a player at a lower prominence. Not an really documented in detail or described methods. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Well okay, but if you were to look below, the sources in this article saying unprecedented aren't these three publications. starship.paint (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mythdon: - could you read the below comment, thank you. starship.paint (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla, Jack Upland, PraiseVivec, Atsme, and Gregnator: - per your support votes, have you guys actually checked this article and the sources as to whether JFG's version is even accurate? In the sources from the article, which you can find below, they do not say Fact-checkers ... documented ... an unprecedented number. starship.paint (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That’s a good catch, hadn’t noticed that. I’m striking my vote for now. soibangla (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the academic sources for unprecedented: paper by Carole McGranahan, quote from "historians", quote from Michael R. Beschloss, quote from "White House scholars and other students of government" and George Edwards, quote from Douglas Brinkley, paper by Heidi Taksdal Skjeseth, paper by Donnel Stern. Which of these are fact checkers? starship.paint (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the journalists / writer for media sources for unprecedented: Chris Cillizza, Susan Glasser, Maria Konnikova. Which of these are fact checkers? starship.paint (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I hear you. So would you support "Media and academics have documented that Trump made an unprecedented number of false and misleading statements during his campaign and presidency"? I kept fact-checkers in there because they were prominently featured in arguments during the prior RfC. I'm personally fine putting Trump's statements in wikivoice instead of attributing them to anybody, but that would surely get much-stronger pushback. It's hard to achieve neutrality without weaseling. — JFG ^talk 11:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: - I would support that. It does reflect the current body. By the way, I just found one fact-checker source on his unprecedented falsehoods as a presidential candidate. If you restart this ... consider wikivoice as a third option. starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Good. I think this RfC is now too far underway to change anything, especially not adding a third option. But you could perhaps qualify your "strong oppose" in the survey section by stating that you would support the "media and academics" variant that we just discussed. I'll mention it next to my !vote as well. — JFG ^talk 08:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Done, added just below my vote. starship.paint (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Me too. 🤝 — JFG ^talk 08:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Tariffs equivalent to one of the largest tax increases in decades

This edit was reverted:

Analysis conducted by CNBC in May 2019 found that Trump "enacted tariffs equivalent to one of the largest tax increases in decades," while Tax Foundation and Tax Policy Center analyses found the tariffs could wipe out the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 for many households.

After extensive discussion of the edit, plus two supplemental edits by me and MrX, consensus was reached that tariff information is relevant and DUE in the Trump BLP, and MrX restored part of the content. However, the original edit (above) that initiated this whole process may have fallen through the cracks during this extensive discussion, and there may be some question as to whether it was included in the reached consensus. Consequently I request a vote to explicitly restore the edit.

• Support — soibangla (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose More what-ifs and conjecture of mostly yet to be seen outcomes.--MONGO (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose There are many comparisons that could be made and no reason why these ones have weight. When combined with the income tax cuts, there is a net tax reduction, although the vast majority of Americans will see a net tax increase. I would just say that the tariffs are estimated to cost taxpayers $72 billion per year. TFD (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  @The Four Deuces: - since you say There are many comparisons that could be made can you provide many examples in reliable sources providing different comparisons? starship.paint (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not have to to. You need to show that the comparison cited is significant. TFD (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - My initial instinct was to say that this was too prognosticative and detailed, but after reading the sources (of which more are available), I think we need to include this for NPOV reasons because of how extensively we already cover the tax cut legislation in this article:

1. In the lead: "He enacted a tax cut package for individuals and businesses,"
2. "Trump had asserted that a policy of tax cuts and deregulation would result in 3% annualized GDP growth, and perhaps much higher,..."
3. Entire paragraph that begins "In December 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017,..."

I know we are concerned about article length, so I suggest we look at condensing paragraphs 4, 5 and the first part of 6 under 'Economy and trade' to make room for the 50 words proposed.- MrX 🖋 12:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - none of the information regarding details of his presidency belong in his BLP - they belong in Presidency of Donald Trump, and from there, possibly into spin-off articles about specific (his most notable) policy decisions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Accordingly, I look forward to your edits that will cut the article size in half. soibangla (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – @Soibangla: If you mean this thread to be a RfC, you should add the required {{rfc}} tag, which will trigger the automated process and notifications. If you mean it just as a local informal survey, then please remove "RfC:" from the thread title. — JFG ^talk 19:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  I've removed "RfC:" from the heading. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to use that tag. I'd appreciate if you could add it so I can see what it looks like and I will comply in the future. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Per WP:RFCBEFORE, an RfC would be premature at this juncture. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - as said before, there is relatively minute WEIGHT for the particular item, it is SPECULATION, and really not biographical but more a Presidency line. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - well supported by sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – It's opinion, and it's the wrong article. Go to Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration, Trump tariffs and China–United States trade war. — JFG ^talk 11:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Here's another source saying the tariffs are a pretty huge tax hike which was passed on to Americans just about 100 percent. The same Slate journalist (now that we're all Slate fans) also reported that on top of that the tariffs didn't reduce the trade deficit. On the contrary, the trade deficit increased, hitting a 10-year high last December. (Aside to JFG and Atsme: Which is it, Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration or Presidency of Donald Trump? How about Foreign policy? What exactly are the criteria for including or excluding things Trump has done as president from his BLP? A subject can be covered in more detail in a child article but it still should get mentioned here.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In response to your question, Space4Time3Continuum2x I refer you to USA Today, "Is The U.S. Winning The Trade War?" I'm concerned we've lost sight of what is/isn't encyclopedic material for Tariffs and may have opted instead for inclusion of speculation. The current political climate between global factions and Trump's focus on US self-sufficiency may explain some of the negativity but we should not lose sight of the fact that we're dealing with WP:RECENTISM, NEWSORG and various NOT issues. Inclusion of material should not be based solely on the number of news publications covering it. The following important questions have not been sufficiently addressed to my knowledge: (1) will it have lasting value, and (2) is it encyclopedic, which requires unbiased, sound editorial judgment? I'm of the mind that we should include only the facts matter-of-factly - tariffs have been imposed and the reason for them - and then wait until the imposed tariffs have actually had an effect and which countries were actually affected. Another concern is that if the tariffs actually work, the repurcussions will not be unlike what happened with MSM's embarrassing 2016 election predictions and relentless allegations of Russian-collusion. My primary concern is that if we ignore RECENTISM, what negative effects will it have on the pedia? As for your proposed article titles, all are worth consideration. What about Presidency of Donald Trump (economy), and/or Presidency of Donald Trump (???) for the sake of easy to find? Quite frankly, from a GA/FA reviewer's perspective, the ever-changing economy doesn't belong in this BLP. We may be able to summarize it factually/historically after his term ends - refer to the articles of former presidents. What we're doing now is including hyperbole (and wasting a great deal of effort), POV speculation and including just about every critical/disparaging opinion ever published in the news about this BLP. While citing RS certainly satisfies NOR and potential challenges, it does not satisfy WP:VNOTSUFF or NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

...the repurcussions will not be unlike what happened with MSM's embarrassing 2016 election predictions and relentless allegations of Russian-collusion. What MSM relentless allegations of Russian-collusion? Would you stop pushing this alt-right nonsense? It’s disruptive and not even relevant to this section except in the minds of relentless media-bashers. Stay on topic. O3000 (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

MSM's embarrassing 2016 election predictions The press reported on what was the nearly universal belief, as consistently reflected in polls and betting markets, right up to and including Election Day — and by Trump himself even as election returns were coming in — that he would lose. soibangla (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

O3000 & Soibangla - is it necessary for both of you to team-up and push your own POV in opposition to my factual response to a question I was asked by another editor? O3000 you need to stop casting aspersions against me - it is extremely annoying, particularly your relentless gaslighting, PAs and false accusations of disruption, the latter of which is actually considered disruption. Stop baiting me, launching PAs, gaslighting and casting aspersions and please, for WP's sake, focus on productive contributions. I've made note of these diffs and the fact that many RS/journalists have already admitted their errors, none of which are alt-right as you claimed. Matt Taibbi certainly isn't alt-right, and The New Yorker isn't alt-right but do we not expect TNY to respond defensively? The Intercept certainly is not alt-right, WSJ isn't alt-right, and on and on. To deny the media got the 2016 election wrong goes beyond ridiculous - Vox states: "Most scholars and commentators these days are overly cautious about venturing predictions. It’s understandable: After so many got so much wrong in 2016, the natural response is to step back and “get out of the prediction business.” Facts only, please. Our own policies tell us to exercise caution and to use in-text attribution as applicable. Facts are facts - they are not right, left, alt-right, alt-left, progressive or whatever. They are facts and they speak for themselves - I'm simply reciting those facts. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There was no team-up and I did not express a POV. soibangla (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, you can't make yourself immune to criticism on this page, none of us can. You can disagree with it, but you can't ascribe bad faith without evidence. Your "team-up" is called multiple editors in agreement in opposition to your position in the same discussion. That's what we do here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, Mandruss, neither can you or anyone else. I'm well aware of what we do here after nearly a decade of editing WP, and participating at NPP, AfC, GA/FA reviews, etc. You are certainly entitled to express your opinion, but you are not entitled to make-up your own facts or cast aspersions. I provided supporting evidence for everything I've said. What you are doing now is adding to the piles. I will gladly take the high road and end the PAs against me here and now but will add that Soibangla was kind enough to present his POV neutrally and I thanked him respectfully. You and O3000 should follow suit, and we'll all be further ahead as collaborators. I've been the recipient of more than my share of mud, so I'll bid you good day and happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Your reference to the USA Today article didn't really answer my question about the criteria for including or excluding material from this article, especially since you seem to have stopped reading after the first paragraph. As for the rest of your post, let's just say we disagree on many things and leave it at that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump's "best economy in history"

MONGO reverted this edit because "stocks are higher than ever...unemployment is lower than in last 50 years," despite the facts that:

• The Obama market outperformed the Trump market, reaching all-time record highs 103 times between March 5, 2013 and election day 2016 (I have that data on a spreadsheet somewhere, if anyone would like to see it)

• The unemployment rate had been declining steadily for seven years before Trump was elected, contrary to efforts by some to make it seem that Trump became president and flipped a magic switch to cause unemployment to suddenly drop.

• And anyway, the edit contains eight cites from a reliable source showing that Trump's assertions are false. And that's what we rely on here: reliable sources.

I recommend the edit be restored. soibangla (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Both Trump's declarations, MONGO's assertion and Soibangla's sources are opinion about the health of the economy and the respective attribution to the Obama or Trump presidencies. The economy is always good or bad, best or worst, by some measure. Best leave all opinion out. — JFG ^talk 19:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

There isn't even a definition of "best economy" as it would have to include the how likely a recession will occur and how resiliently it will perform once the inevitable recession does. Which is only a comment, not an argument for or against inclusion. O3000 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of a RS reporting the assertions as false — eight times. But anyway, by every metric a reasonable person can name — GDP, job creation, wage growth, earnings growth, stock market, unemployment rate, labor participation, you name it — we are most certainly not in the best economy in American history, not by a long shot. "By just about any important measure, the economy today is not doing as well as it did under Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton — and Ulysses S. Grant" soibangla (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, report what reliable sources say, subject to WEIGHT. If MONGO wishes to include a different viewpoint with sufficient sourcing, he is free to do so. Leave personal political analysis out of it; that is not our job. That said, it did seem odd to me that all eight cites were from AP. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I reported what RS said, MONGO cited specific metrics that are easily debunked. I can produce other reliable sources if desired, but I figured that AP is considered perhaps the most anodyne source that is rarely if ever challenged as "fake news." soibangla (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on what you've said, I'm curious to know if editors think MONGO reverted because he should — or because he could. soibangla (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that it matters what we think about that.

Maybe I haven't been clear: Your content is a fair reflection of adequate sourcing per WEIGHT, and should therefore remain in. MONGO is free to add an alternative viewpoint if he can produce adequate sourcing per WEIGHT. Then we can discuss to what extent it's appropriate to use wiki voice. To date, MONGO hasn't produced anything but his own view of the political situation. Nor has anybody else in this thread, except you. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

his own view of the political situation is not sufficient grounds to revert and force another editor into WP:ONUS. If I'm not mistaken, you recently called into question whether MONGO should be permitted to edit American politics articles. soibangla (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I once said that I would support a topic ban if MONGO were taken to AE. He has not been taken to AE, and this is not the place to discuss such things (I said that on a user talk page, not in article talk).

As I understand the process, pretty much anything is sufficient grounds for a revert that doesn't violate the explicit rules, and an editor who repeatedly abuses that freedom should be taken to AE. I also understand that the system is messy, inconsistent, and unreliable, the natural and inevitable result of self-selected self-governance. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla - find other sources to mix it up (I’m sure WaPo cited best economy as one of Trump’s most repeated falsehoods) and I’ll add it back as DUE material. starship.paint (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"President Trump’s repeated claim: 'The greatest economy in the history of our country’" soibangla (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Soibangla. Now, if you could find even more of other sources, or at least find other reliable sources citing AP, then I think you would strengthen your claim on DUE weight, due to a range of sources rather than only two at the moment. starship.paint (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Will three do? Trump Says the U.S. Economy Is the ‘Greatest’ Ever. It’s Not soibangla (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Eight will, and it's done, Soibangla. I've reinserted the material [16] after I found five more sources (Yahoo, LA Times, Stuff, Newsweek, CNBC) to go along with AP, WaPo and Bloomberg. starship.paint (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Do we really need to report - in this already-huge biography - every time he makes one of these ridiculous claims? This is "the greatest economy in history". He's had "the most successful first two years of any president in history". He signed "the biggest tax cut in history". He had "the largest inaugural crowd in history". He won "perhaps the greatest election of all time". He is "the healthiest individual ever to assume the presidency". IMO we shouldn't clutter up his biography with these things. Put them in the Presidency of Donald Trump article, or the Economic policy article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree that it belongs in a sub-article. Besides, I won the greatest election of all time when I was unanimously voted most handsome man in my apartment. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

We'll put it in your article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Where's the subpoena? O3000 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Would we put it in this article had he actually had the best economy? I'm sure we would, that's an extremely significant achievement, even if it was that he just didn't bungle up what Obama started. By that metric, we should also put in this article that he has repeatedly lied about having the best economy. starship.paint (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I've reinserted the material [17] after I found five more sources (Yahoo, LA Times, Stuff, Newsweek, CNBC) to go along with AP, WaPo and Bloomberg. Mandruss - this will appease your caution on the over-reliance on AP. starship.paint (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

See the NYTimes article which was cited by IBD. A few others include Hill, and CNBC. The simple facts (not opinions): "GDP growth in the first nine quarters of the Trump presidency has averaged 2.77%—versus 2.3% over the 16 quarters of Barack Obama's" and so on. An interesting note - the May 10th article in The Nation. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really pertinent to the question at hand. Find us eight reliable sources that say this is the best economy in American history, and we can talk. That's what Trump has been saying over and over. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Atsme - your NYT article is from Aug. 6, 2016 before Trump was ever president. Which of your sources argue that this is the best economy in history - as is the title of this section? starship.paint (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• JUST THE FACTS PLEASE - somehow instead of being about economy facts and mentioning major news items the record low unemployment, the record stock market, the record GDP level and continuing 10 years of growth .... this is casting things into the gossip channel and telling about critics nit-picking over hyperbole. If it’s not all deleted as non-biographical, need some perspective here, and observance of WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  FACT - Trump has repeatedly called his economy the best ever. FACT - reliable sources disagree that it is the best ever. Would you like to provide reliable sources on how the GDP and stocks are at their highest level ever, and that unemployment is at its lowest level ever? starship.paint (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Please stick to ECONOMIC facts, as well as perspective and WEIGHT. Critics nit-picking speeches are not big WEIGHT compared to the missing economic stories, and not deserving of lead position. Markbassett (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Found a source saying [18] the unemployment rate was as low as 2.5 percent in 1953 ... The GDP is the broadest measure of the economy ... In 1950 and 1951, it was 8.7 and 8 percent, respectively. Does Trump beat that? Found a source [19] quoting Trump's claim for the record stock market, it says We’ll also note that it’s unclear how valuable the stock market is as a gauge of the country’s economic health. Not every American is invested, so it’s probably not the most important economic metric. starship.paint (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

" In 1950 and 1951, it was 8.7 and 8 percent" - careful, you're talking about GDP growth, not actual GDP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Irrelevant to this discussion. Nobody has to "prove" anything except what RS says – specifically about strongest economy in U.S. history, not individual cherry-picked metrics. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  User:Starship.paint OK, so let’s talk the RS phrasing on that then ... it would be something like “In the second year of President Trump’s term, unemployment declined to historic low levels unprecedented in modern history or 70-year low in national unemployment; and lowest unemployment ever measured for blacks, 19 states, and certain labor categories.” Obviously many sites, highly significant, and major WEIGHT. How about I post it phrased like that ? Markbassett (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Markbassett - Unprecedented ... modern - not okay, misleading, vague. 70-year low - okay. 19 states, labor categories - list them, vague otherwise. Assuming you have the sources. I seem to remember the blacks unemployment being (jointly?) attributed to Obama - will add if sources say so. starship.paint (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  DONE - "By late 2018 and early 2019, the national average unemployment continued to decline to lows not seen since 1969,[5][6][7][8] with occasional record lows set for 19 states[9][10], and in racial measures for blacks, hispanics, and asian-americans.[11]" I used cites to whitehouse.gov, bbc.com, fortune.com, pbs.org; bloomberg.com, bls.gov; and NBCnews.com. Others of course available, but these seemed major sources of diverse types in the financial arena. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Ok, Sgt. Friday. Fact 1: Trump has repeatedly said this is the strongest economy in U.S. history. Fact 2: We have 8 reliable sources that say that is not true. Which fact do you dispute?

  As for WEIGHT, I think it's time you learned what that means. WP:WEIGHT speaks of "the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" – not about our personal opinions about the relative importance of those viewpoints. There is nothing in WEIGHT or any policy that says we can choose to ignore anything said in RS in sufficient quantity. We routinely include things with considerably less than eight independent sources, so you have no WEIGHT basis to oppose this content. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Well aware of what WEIGHT means and that is not the rationale for my revert. I feel such additions belong in daughter's articles not in the mainline BLP. My edit summary is accurate however, as stocks are at the highest point and unemployment is at a 50 year low [20], [21]. Whether this happened due to Obama or Trump policies isn't the point as they happened during Trumps administration. I notice Soibangla did add this same material elsewhere as they did here and here, and, believe it or not also here, yet I did not remove it from those articles. Why is this same material in 4 different articles? ...why do we have daughter articles if the same material is going to be found in every related article? It defeats the purpose of having spinoffs.--MONGO (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

By stock market, I assume you mean the Dow. The Dows only measures 30 of the 28 million businesses in the US. And, companies among those 30 that fall on hard times are replaced by companies that are performing better, like GE last year. And the stock prices of these companies can be improved with stock buybacks, which are now quite common due to repatriated foreign cash. This is a poor measure of the economy. O3000 (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@MONGO and Objective3000: - stock market highs are not uncommon. [22] Yahoo! Finance analysed the presidents since 1980, and every one of them had record stock market highs. Bushes had under 50, Obama and Reagan had over 100, Clinton had over 200. The source further says: It’s a bit silly to gauge a president’s mettle by the number of stock-market highs, since the stock market consistently hits new highs as the economy grows. “In a rising market, you will see new highs on a regular basis,” Brad McMillan of Commonwealth Financial Network wrote to clients on April 24 starship.paint (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT being all viewpoints in proportion to their prominence, the views on the state of the U.S. economy are in 170 Million cites ... the eight about nit-picking a Trump speech just are not DUE any mention. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, let's remove everything with eight cites or less from this article, given that there are 1 billion Google hits for Donald Trump, eight is surely nitpicking. To even be a significant minority viewpoint, I propose a percentage of 5 %, so we need about 50 million cites per sentence. starship.paint (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• FACT: the first cited source (Yahoo News) used for the restored material states: As is often the case, President Trump is half-right. We say what the RS say. The material that was restored doesn't say he was half-right, nor does it mention anything about him being right about anything. It's all criticism and speculation which is noncompliant with NPOV because half the information that belongs has been omitted. Further, much of the material that was restored is UNDUE because there is no way to determine what the tariffs (global trade) will do until his term is over. Trump has only completed a little more than half of his term. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Atsme - have you read beyond the first line of that Yahoo! Finance article [23]? The fourth and fifth lines say But he’s going way overboard when he insists that, “in many ways this is the greatest economy in the history of America.” It’s not, and the reasons why matter—because they might be the rumblings of the next recession. Come on. I'm truly astonished. Further down, Our current grade on the Trumponomics report card is a solid B. Since Trump is claiming historical superiority, we’ll tell you exactly where he stands ... 3rd ... second ... third ... third ... third ... third - starship.paint (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  ?.. “in many ways this is the greatest economy” seems a modest claim that is factually true, “many” meaning you could come up with 5 or 6. (That there are also many ways it isn’t the greatest can also be true, same reason). Markbassett (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  So Yahoo! Finance says It’s not, and you, citing nothing, says it is. starship.paint (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  ??? Don’t be silly. You know perfectly well major items like this millions of cites, far greater WEIGHT than the speech nit-picking. The stock market records are repeatedly in WSJ, Barron’s, CNBC, Yahoo, etcetera many others, for each of the dozens of times it hit a new high. That unemployment is the lowest ever measured for blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans is similarly BLS.gov covered by AP, Bloomberg, CBS, CNBC, CNN, .... Cites would be with the edit, picking a couple BESTSOURCES may be hard only because with so many highly authoritative and large it’s a tough call. Markbassett (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: - stock market highs are not uncommon, they are in fact, very regular given a growing economy. [24] Yahoo! Finance analysed the presidents since 1980, and every single one of them had record stock market highs. Bushes had under 50, Obama and Reagan had over 100, Clinton had over 200. The source further says: It’s a bit silly to gauge a president’s mettle by the number of stock-market highs, since the stock market consistently hits new highs as the economy grows. “In a rising market, you will see new highs on a regular basis,” Brad McMillan of Commonwealth Financial Network wrote to clients on April 24 starship.paint (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  Did these UE rates suddenly decline when Trump became president? soibangla (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  User:Starship.paint Yes, stock market is one of the “in many ways this is the best economy in history”. Thank you for the article which says ‘Trump has had more record highs in his first 2 years than any other’, with a whopping 37% increase in the first year from Election - called the Trump stock market rally. Yes, before this record high others had record highs, such is the nature of records. At the moment Trump likes touting that the economy is great, speech critics nit-pick about that, and WP for BLP should JUST REPORT THE FACTS PLEASE, and not report just the gossipy or the spinning. Are you proposing to put in content about the market? As previously posted, I’ll maybe try to put up unemployment numbers, but am doing other things first, so go ahead and propose. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  You can add that, and I'll add in the same source saying It’s a bit silly to gauge a president’s mettle by the number of stock-market highs, since the stock market consistently hits new highs as the economy grows. starship.paint (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  S&P500 after 640 trading days since election days, through yesterday: Obama — up 32.6%, Trump — up 30.1%. After 591 trading days since inauguration days: Obama — up 63.5%, Trump — up 22.5%. Google spreadsheet upon request. soibangla (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• ^^^^That. But even if you were correct: Per WEIGHT, I don't think we're going to include content saying that one of the 8 sources says Trump has been only half-lying. We stick to prominence in RS and leave other reasoning out of it. We don't look at what one source says and argue that it says something equally important to seven that don't say that. That judgment is not ours to make. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Per BALANCE/NPOV we include all relevant views, and we don't use only those RS that support the same view when there are other RS that support a different view. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Please make visible these RS that support a different view (that Trump’s economy is the best in history). I don’t see any. starship.paint (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Did you really restore this within the minimal 24 hour discussion period? The wording in the banner is a bit vague so I am unclear if it means no one can restore it, or only the original editor cannot do so. Please correct me if I am mistaken and I do see you added further references...nevertheless, what is the rush, especially since we have I believe 5 editors who oppose it even being here and only three supporting it so far. I see MelanieN also thought it should be in another article, yet did move it to a different location in the section.--MONGO (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Banner says "one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period". If I violated 1RR, let me know so I can correct it. Banner said If an edit you make is challenged by reversion. The original edit wasn't by me, and I've added different sources anyway, so it's not a wholesale revert. If this needs to be an RfC, let us know. starship.paint (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Do you think there is as yet a consensus for the restoration as I don't yet see it. I think without one re-adding it even with more cites makes this an issue deserving an Rfc.--MONGO (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I support it. Who are the five that supposedly oppose it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Myself, Atsme, 0300, MelanieN and Markbassett, the latter two, MelanieN ended up moving it after starship.paint restored it and markbassett may not possibly one way or the other as they have not made it clear, but seems to be arguing against it. Why is this material in 4 different articles, all added by Soibangla with this one added last? If it already appeared elsewhere, all added the same day, why is it parroted here too.--MONGO (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

So if something appears on other articles it can't appear here? Perhaps it simply deserves to be on all these articles. If any president had his country's best economy ever, I would support the material on their personal page. If any president repeatedly boasted about having his country's best economy ever and were rebuked by many reliable sources, I would also support that material on their personal page. starship.paint (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Makes little sense to be parroting the same material on multiple articles that are spinoffs to keep related material together. This is the reason we have daughter articles. A review of summary style might help.--MONGO (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Cool, so this article should not include anything that's in one of the sub-articles. I'm for that, so when do we start gutting this article and reducing it to about 40% of its current size? I mean, either we do that or your argument falls flat on its face, which is it? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

A. Not what I said. B. Follow summary style. This article as MelanieN already stated is bloated. Its bloated by constant coatracking and it is bloated at 430k kilobytes...we keep posting material at 3,4,5 different articles that is all the same we might as well redirect all of those back here and just have one 2 million KB mess.--MONGO (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

On this list here this article is the 38th longest on the pedia. I do recognize however that this one has a lot of bytes dedicated to referencing.--MONGO (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I have long argued that the article should not include anything that will not belong here in about 20 years. Not only does that result in severe bloat, but it helps make the article a political battleground. Most editors on both ends of the spectrum—whether they admit it or not—whether they realize it or not—advocate or oppose content here on the basis of how it might affect public opinion, and particularly the 2020 election.

I have warned about the slippery slope that results from the absence of a bright line rule backed by consensus, and I have been advised not to worry about it. So I haven't worried about it much (out loud), and this is the result. My point is that the problem is far larger than one sentence, and we can't address it one proposed new sentence at a time. As long as the article includes anything of this nature, there is no bloat rationale for omitting one more instance of it. Just curious, how many times have you made a bloat argument against Trump-favorable content? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Show me a clear consensus this material belongs in the article without resulting to specious comments and inquires about ones intent. An Rfc would do.--MONGO (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Why are we discussing the Economic history of the United States in this article? We have a specific article for such data. And Trump is simply using hyperbole to gain some political support, he is not comparing financial data to compare the current economy with that of any other presidential administration since 1789. Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

We are not discussing the Economic history of the United States; rather, those who are shouldn't be, since that is not what the disputed content is about. Instead, we are discussing the article's subject individual making repeated claims about the economic history of the United States that, according to a sufficient number of reliable sources, are false. And it is not our job to second-guess reliable sources, debating things like hyperbole to gain some political support, but rather to report what they say, provided they say it in sufficient numbers. That's what Wikipedia policy says. The numbers are more than sufficient, or a good 20% of the article needs to go. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm counting 15,000+ words that have main articles elsewhere. The article without footnotes and references is less than 18,000 words. Cutting everything with main articles elsewhere wouldn't even leave you with 20%. Here's the remaining sections with a total of around 2,000 words: Early life and education, Religion, Conflicts of interest (business), Professional wrestling, The Apprentice, Radio and television commentary, Political activities up to 2015, 2012 presidential speculation, 2013–2015 (political career) and 2019 House investigation. starship.paint (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Getting rid of about 80% of current content sounds about right, though I’d have guessed 50% for where one gets by looking at the easily questionable - anything not biographical, or not a major news item more than a 1-week wonder, gossip quotefarms, excessively wordy phrasing’s... all the bloat with trivia or detail stuff already covered elsewhere. It might work best to set some minimum guidelines for what can stay, and then it would be both a cutting guide and a filter against rebloating. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with a whole bunch of editors here that this material shouldn't be included in this article. Every time Trump says something false or outlandish, the media jump, not because of the subject matter but because fact checking is their job. Fact checking is not our job because we are not a newspaper. Therefore, the fact that these statements are covered by news media doesn't bear much on whether they're sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. For the most part, they're not. The section of this article about the economy under the Trump administration should be about that, the actual economy and not the relatively inconsequential things that Trump says about it. R2 (bleep) 19:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  Every time Trump says something false or outlandish, the media jump, not because of the subject matter but because fact checking is their job. - not really, he’s said this over 134 times and this is his 4th most repeated falsehood (per WaPo source here) and the media doesn’t jump every time. Furthermore, it is a big lie, because if it were actually true and reliable sources said Trump had the best economy, we would include it in the article. starship.paint (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  The economy is arguably the only thing keeping his approval rating above 30%. It's not inconsequential that he keeps repeating it's the best economy ever, many people blindly believe it. And not only isn't it the best economy ever, it isn't even the best economy since 2012. soibangla (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

  ? That actually offers evidence of Trump being right. It shows GDP this year being a record — more than Trump’s first year, which was more than the Obama’s best year, etcetera. “Best” GDP ever. And p.s. think that 42% approval is of his actions, and/or style... eh, tastes vary... because Quinnipiac poll says he’s not getting credit for the economy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It shows GDP this year being a record...more than the Obama’s best year No. It. Does. Not. soibangla (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

?? Just pointing out the mathematical fact. GDP Grew every year of Obama then grew for the 2 years after Obama = GDP now more than Obama ever had. GDP usually grows, that’s why it could be considered one of the “in many ways” this is the best U.S. economy in history. If you look for records that support the claim, you find some exist. That critics chose instead to seek ways it is not is also possible - that would not disprove the statement Trump made, it would only disprove if the claim had been “in ALL ways”. But again, WP should not be promoting here, it should just state the facts please. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot begin to describe how many ways your "analysis" of GDP now more than Obama ever had is deeply flawed, so I won't even start. Just take a glance at this chart and tell me again why a record level of GDP is noteworthy. soibangla (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Soibangla ???? How are you seeing what’s shown there as a negative or as a suspect “analysis” and not simple mathematical fact? That source to me is an even clearer and very authoritative showing of what I said about the table of continuous positives “It shows this year GDP as being a record, higher than Trump’s first year, which was more than Obama’s best year, etcetera. “Best” GDP ever.” 18.9 trillion chart on right side is higher than 18.3 a year before, is higher than 17.8 the year before, etcetera. Look, you offered a weblink and said it showed Trump wrong ... but I pointed out it instead supports Trump... how are you feeling this doesn’t show highest GDP ever or that highest GDP would not be evidence towards Trump being right ???? Very puzzled be adamant ‘no it doesn’t’ and how/why you feel second source disproves that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

►facepalm◄ soibangla (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding your own WP:OR. Why do you think GDP is the sole measurement of economy? Why do you think the highest GDP means anything about the state of the economy since it naturally grows over time, just as the population grows. Why would consider anything in the realm of economics “mathematical fact” when economists have so much disagreement? Where is the preponderance of reliable sources? O3000 (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Soibangla you’re making no sense - it was you who put a link to chart of all-growing GDP as a Trump negative, I simply put up a “?” And said that actually it supports Trump ... Your vehement ‘no it does not’ and saying ‘GDP now higher than Obama ever had is wrong’ and giving me an even more obvious chart showing it IS now higher than Obama ever had just got even more ???? marks. Look, simple fact GDP is higher now than prior years, mathematically 18 is more than 17 - that’s not “analysis”, that’s not “OR”, accept that’s simple fact being shown by the cites you’re putting forward yet saying they somehow do not show this. I have no idea how you’re getting that backwards into up is down. I don’t absolutely need to — while very puzzled on how you’re not seeing this as up is up, or simple fact as simple fact, just note that claims that table or chart is negative got pushback and move along. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no longer any way I can attempt to communicate with you without engaging in personal attacks about your competence and motives. Goodbye. soibangla (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I looked into this further and agree with you, Soibangla, in light of the fact that this isn't an isolated tweet but a pattern of tweets that, as a pattern, have received a lot of media attention. However, I believe that this sentence about Trump's false tweets shouldn't lead the paragraph. The paragraph should start with a summary of the economy under Trump and proceed to verifiable details. Trump's statements can come after that, clearly indicating that they're false, followed by a phrase or sentence about how some Americans are being misled (if reliably sourced, of course). And Markbassett, if you're going to disrupt discussions with falsehoods like that then there's a conduct problem. I urge you to provide some credible evidence, or strike your comment. R2 (bleep) 19:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding with regards to the inclusion of material in an article. WP:ONUS states: While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. NPOV states: Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. Noncompliance with NPOV is/has been detected, not only by editors but by readers who have attempted to make corrections (via pp Trump-related articles). WP:GNG requires multiple sources as it relates to notability, not for material inclusion. It appears WEIGHT is mistakenly being applied based on the number of sources cited as if to justify inclusion, irrespective of NOTNEWS (as indicated above) in that Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source. The news agencies mentioned include BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press - which should be cited in addition to the news pub that reprinted it. We use RS for two purposes: to (1) avoid OR and (2) satisfy V; therefore, wide-spread coverage in news sources does not automatically guarantee inclusion in an article. The assumption sometimes leads us to noncompliance with PAGS, including NPOV, WP:NOTSPECULATION, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and possibly even WP:NOTSTATS, especially with reference to propaganda, opinion polling, POV graphs as we often see with economic stats (and as the arguments have already established to be POV). And yes - that applies to all political views/opinions and why we should exercise caution when including such material. Some of it is neither encyclopedic nor does it have lasting value as evidenced in the edit histories of various articles about former high profile political figures and in this case, US presidents, which provide a good standard to follow. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Frankly speaking, Trump’s claim of the “best economy in history” is simply one more of his absurd exaggerations. By what measurement would you compare a current economy without knowing the future? And what does “current” even mean? Why don’t we just completely ignore it instead of arguing about how to measure the “best economy in history”. We can leave that to ivory tower economists, like theologians arguing about whether Jesus owned his own clothes or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. O3000 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• I fail to see any relevance in that wall of text. There is no POV or judgment in the edit. The assertion that we are now in the best economy in history, which he has asserted 134 times per WaPo, is simply, flatly, patently false by overwhelming, objective factual evidence. soibangla (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• That’s an incorrect portrayal of the WaPo opinion pieces - they all start with ‘while it is something to brag about’, which is missing in article text. And then the WaPo saying ‘not quite historic’ by a measure they then look at, got in the text exaggerated from an ‘not quite’ into an unambiguous “false”. If it was portrayed as WaPo said 134 time ‘not quite’ would be closer. A further problem here is it does not convey the viewpoint Trump or others was giving on that subject so does not meet NPOV, it only portrays the speech criticism. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla - I disagree with your revert [25]. Merely stating 4% doesn't tell us much, it's just a number. Having the lowest unemployment since 1969 is significant. Having record lows in almost 20 states is also significant (I would put in a note exactly which states). Same for the races. Markbassett has already attempted to discuss it above before inserting. starship.paint (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I support that reversion. The removed material was ostensibly about the US economy, not Trump. Written in that way, it effectively used Wikivoice to claim these economic successes are directly attributable to Trump policies, which is (a) unlikely, (b) impossible to prove, and (c) unsupported by the references. I am not necessarily opposed to the inclusion of those details, but I am opposed to the way it was written before the reversion. Perhaps the entire summary in that section should be looked at again and worked out here before putting it back in? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

So propose (or make) alternative phrasing. Simply stating the unemployment rate seemed simplest, in line with the preceding text and follows just showing the rate was done in Barack Obama. During the administration is what’s the general approach anyway - it may seem fair or not, but the norm is presidents get noted for what happens on their watch. The unemployment could be given as a chart like the Obama page, but that would not convey the WEIGHT of coverage is about ‘best since 1969’ and ‘some states and racial groups hitting record lows’. Any other thoughts ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You do understand that "best since 1969" has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump or his policies, right? Literally anyone could've been POTUS and that "record" would've been hit at roughly the same time. One only has to look at a graph showing the unemployment rate since the Bush recession to see why. The WEIGHT of coverage is more about how Trump brags about these records, rather than the records themselves. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Scjessey No, it is pretty clear the WEIGHT of coverage on US unemployment is about the getting to historic lows or setting new records. Reviewing speeches by Trump about it is obviously a subset where just not many have that focus, and some of them agree or praise him.

• Raw Google is fairly overwhelming that about 90% of coverage on US unemployment record low is not mentioning Trump - Google "united states" unemployment record low gets 24.7 million hits but with Trump added hits 3.9 million. That google is a crude filter, and pulls in a lot of Obama or blogs, but as a rough take the results are overwhelming. (Perhaps partly because Unemployment lows are there to be mentioned every day, and Trump saying something about them is not every day.)
• Prominent business publications basically don't do speech critiques - articles there focus on what it means or why it happened, check out Bloomberg, TheEconomist, Forbes, [26], WSJ
• Covering the dozens of records set isn't national - new records get mentioned a lot in .gov and press for states, counties, racial groups, or labor categories such as construction and tech, not about the national level - Tennessee, San Francisco, Construction
• Generic national coverage also ~90% on the events, not the speeches - looking at Reuters USAToday
• Praises in the 10% mentioning Trump - and in the mix are publications like FoxNews and Breitbart for example.

So again, the coverage of Unemployment Hitting Record Lows is much more about it happening, business implications and why, and each individual record. WEIGHT for the Unemployment news is much higher than weight for criticisms about Trump speeches which mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs)

@Markbassett: You've made my point for me. The weight of the Trump coverage is about his bragging. The weight of the economical coverage barely mentions Trump. Ergo, there's little point in keeping the material in question. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Scjessey From my view, authoritative economy sources like The Economist are talking about “the Trump boom” and that Republicans (including Trump) have a glowing economy ... and there are no speech criticisms. So WEIGHT of Trump mentions in economy venue is basically positive. Of course, far more is simply reporting the economy as something highly noted during his term... since I posted that, obviously I think that is the most DUE by WEIGHT here. I could also see ‘just the biographical’, hence reasonably happy to have the whole section deleted ... but then it cannot be including speech criticisms that lack biographical content. I cannot see any valid argument for only a negative POV that is neither biographical nor highest WEIGHT by area nor by Trump-specific remarks. Seems like there are three valid choices here, either

• more goes in to satisfy NPOV of having all significant views in proportion to their weight; or
• only general market gets in as nothing else is of significant WEIGHT compared to that; or
• cut it AND speech criticism based on being non-biographical OFFTOPIC. RSVP, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'll just say that Trump saying something can't be off-topic in this article. starship.paint (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Speech criticism however, especially when distorted by WP to exaggerate the cite, seems non-biographical since it is not about a significant decision in his life or event of his life. In large the criticism cites seen seem not about what he said or where or why or meant, but is their own “alternative facts”? These cites seem to just give a snippet and then go off into their own manufactured view of how that could be seen as wrong. e.g. dinging GDP growth when other sources on the same remarks say it was referring to unemployment rate. If their criticism had much WEIGHT or actual effect would be one thing, but here just seems UNDUE sidebar. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It`s obvious Trump inherited a good economy and is taking credit. 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Personality of Donald Trump

“As some prominent psychiatrists have noted, [Trump’s mental health] is the elephant in the room. I think the public is really starting to catch on and widely talk about this now.” (The Independent, 2017)

It's high time that we do something about this article's most startling omission: Trump's personality and health. It's one of the most widely covered issues related to Trump over a period of several years and the subject of an extensive body of expert commentary the world over. Many sources are of very high quality. (Just a few examples: [27], [28], [29], [30]) Clearly countless reliable sources consider this topic to be very important for understanding Trump as a politician. In the years since we first discussed this omission, the body of literature has continued to grow and now includes entire books and academic conferences dedicated to the subject.

We already have a stand-alone article that discusses his physical and mental health (Health of Donald Trump), so the topic is already deemed suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia per se. We even have an article on the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President. (Trump himself has commented on his mental health – or "very stable genius" – on many occasions[31]) There is absolutely no policy-based reason to exclude this material from the main article.

It would be normal for the main article to include a shorter summary of the material found in the topical in-depth article, in the form of a section or sub section. Given the prominence of the topic in coverage related to Trump and its importance according to numerous reliable sources, a one-sentence summary in the lead section would also be appropriate. --Tataral (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

As you probably know, this issue has been debated before, and settled in favor of #Current consensus item 21: Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. This consensus was the outcome of two discussions in July 2017 and August 2017, largely in reaction to the publication of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. At the time, you disagreed with those conclusions and claimed that there was a false claim about a non-existent consensus, although it was pretty much unanimous. If you'd like to check whether consensus may have changed, please suggest some text and start an RfC. I'm not sure that digging up 2016–2017 sources, as you did above, will help change anybody's mind. If you have more recent material to support your suggestion, let's see it. — JFG ^talk 06:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

In part, I agree with what JFG is saying. This article is written in summary style, which means it should ideally be a concise summary of all the "daughter articles" that are biographically significant. With that said, Tataral is talking about bringing in a highly controversial aspect of Trump, who is already a highly controversial and polarizing figure. The best way to do this is for Tataral to come up with a very short paragraph that summarizes what needs to be said, then present it here for debate; however, it is premature to be talking about RfCs. An RfC is only necessary when normal discussion has broken down, and we haven't even started to consider some appropriate text yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed before. It has not been "settled" and there is no consensus either for or against including this material now, and never has been (as also discussed before). As also discussed before, a consensus for including this material might very well develop in the future, so this was always an issue that we would have to revisit – in this case because it is a topic with its own daughter article that would normally be mentioned/summarized in the main article, and also because the topic was comparatively new when we first started to discuss it several years ago, so RS hadn't had the same chance to digest it. It's normal to start with an informal discussion and it's never a good solution to start an RfC right away without that. An RfC might be appropriate when people have had a chance to weigh in and the options have become clear.

Clearly there is no reason that is actually based on Wikipedia policy for omitting this material when the topic is even deemed worthy of a stand-alone daughter article. The only opposition I've seen was based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The idea that we should "omit any opinions" held by academics or professionals "who have not examined him" is essentially a form of highly idiosyncratic WP:FRINGE POV, seemingly based on one Wikipedia editor's (mis)reading of the non-binding and widely ignored (even explicitly rejected) opinion of just one private association in just one country, where their views regarding that were promptly ignored by the countless experts who went on to write books, have conferences at Yale, write papers and talk to journalists on the topic anyway, not to mention that this recommendation had no relevance for experts and commentators in Europe, Asia, South America etc. in the first place, thereby being very US-centric. The recommendation was also about the personal conduct of mental health professionals within the US and not about Wikipedia content or the broader public discourse. Two entirely different things, so it's also a form of OR/SYNTH.

If the recommendation truly had posed some legal problem for some psychiatrists in the US, we could have avoided that problem entirely by limiting ourselves to citing experts in other countries and/or fields. For example psychologists from the UK. But clearly few or no reliable sources, even in the US, took the opinion seriously, considering the extensive conversation about this topic in reliable sources, including American ones. Wikipedia also doesn't have any such principle, and it's telling that this hasn't been an issue in any other article here that I'm aware of. We have numerous articles that include commentary by experts "who have not examined" the person in question, including entire articles such as Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler and several others (on both living and dead people). In Kim Jong-un there is even a first-level section titled "personality" where the North Korean leader is described as "socially awkward" based on the assessment of a journalist and where Trump is also used as a source for stating that Kim has a "great personality" and is "very smart." With Trump, we have a subject who even discusses his own mental capacities and wellbeing publicly, including widely publicized comments that he is a "genius" and "very stable".

The lack of coverage of this material is part of a larger problem with this article. High quality reliable sources, like The New York Times, overwhelmingly portray Trump in a highly critical light – and his personality is one of the main issues in that coverage, even more so than his actual policies. This article portrays him in an unduly positive light – even Putin is portrayed in a much more critical light, despite years-long efforts[32] by pro-Kremlin accounts to influence the article. Material critical of Trump is systematically downplayed or removed in a manner that doesn't reflect how the topic is covered in reliable sources and that therefore violates WP:WEIGHT. --Tataral (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm open to this, but I would have to see some copy with some impeccable sources. I think it would have to be pretty brief, and I'm not sure where in the article it could be placed.- MrX 🖋 15:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the current structure of the article, it could belong in the section where he is now described as "clinically obese". Although, given the relationship between his personality and politics, a separate first-level section titled "personality" (as seen in several other articles) further below could also be an option. --Tataral (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Scjessey and MrX. Three of the four sources cited by Tataral were published before the summer 2017 consensus formed to exclude this type of material, so I'm a bit skeptical. And the false WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT accusations aren't helpful either. Then again, consensus can change. I'd like to see what we can come up with. R2 (bleep) 17:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• • Since you only registered your account months ago, I'm astonished that you claim detailed knowledge of discussions from way before that, but for the record there was no consensus formed in 2017. The lack of a consensus for including the material at that time does not equal a consensus against it either, only that we would have to revisit the question again in the future (such as now) in order to get consensus for it. I see no legitimate reason for discarding sources merely because they are from 2016 or 2017, and the few sources mentioned were merely examples of a large body of sources discussing this as everyone here are aware of. In fact Trump's personality, narcissism is something that is constantly discussed, more or less daily. I found articles from The New York Times from only yesterday discussing it. [33],[34],[35],[36] The issue here isn't sources but a false claim and original research by one or two members of the pro-Trump crowd that we "can't" discuss someone's personality for some non-existent legal reason (or something like that), and regardless of an ocean of sources discussing the topic, because we, or the sources, haven't met the subject in person, which is both wrong and ridiculous, and certainly not based on Wikipedia policy. --Tataral (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Whoa... talk about unprovoked battlegrounding and personalization of what I thought was supposed to be a friendly, collaborative discussion... You're not going to win consensus that way. Since you only registered your account months ago, I'm astonished that you claim detailed knowledge of discussions from way before that, but for the record there was no consensus formed in 2017. Are you familiar with the talk page archives? Now, setting aside all of that nastiness, if there are more recent sources, then by all means go ahead and use them to draft something up. R2 (bleep) 18:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tataral: Yeah, you need to back that shit down a bit and not jump on R2 like that. Also, might I suggest collecting your thoughts and assembling your comments before posting your wall of text comment here, rather than posting and then making umpteen revisions? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I compose long-ish comments in Notepad (the most basic text editor that comes with Windows), then copy-and-paste. I have a Notepad window always open for use as a "scratch pad" for that and other purposes, so I'm saved the effort of opening one. In more than one way that works better for me than using the wiki editor for that purpose. YMMV. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Tataral, please stop opining about the beliefs or competence of other editors. The subject of this article is very controversial, so it's hard to maintain cooperation, but we need to try. Quit the accusations (WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an accusation) and stick to neutral discussion. Also, it isn't necessary to state and restate your opinion multiple times. What we need here is to concentrate on the article content. What exactly are you proposing to add? As you know I oppose the idea of putting attempts to diagnose or label him into this BLP, but I'm a reasonable person. Let's see what you are proposing to say. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Because this topic has its own main article, any material here should be a summary of that (Wikipedia:Summary style). In the past there have been attempts to argue that the amount and quality of reliable sources discussing this issue don't matter because of a supposed legal or pseudo-legal requirement to omit opinions of everyone but his personal physician, so I thought it was necessary to discuss that before preparing a specific text. I might attempt to draft a proposal during the weekend, depending on the discussion and related events (if the health article is nominated for deletion, it would make sense to wait for the result of that before proceeding with the summary of it here). --Tataral (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if someone is going to nominate it for AFD but I agree it would be worthwhile to get it evaluated before adding something here. BTW please be more selective and accurate when you cite sources here. Of the “articles from the New York Times only yesterday” that you cited above, only one is actually recent or from the NYT. The first two are unacceptable as sources - an interview with a German psychotherapist, undated but apparently from 2017, and an interview last January from an unknown publication called Hillreporter that can’t even spell psychologist (see the url). The NYT opinion is recent does not address his mental health, just his quirks. The Esquire article is from last March and seems to be about a re-issue of “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.” We are persuadable by good sources here, so make sure your sources are good. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I had not previously been aware of the article Health of Donald Trump. I just read it now and I am shocked. The article is one massive BLP violation, full of quotes attributing to him everything from mental incompetence to dementia to various types of personality disorder. Many of the quotes are from people who are totally unqualified to render any such judgment - such as other politicians. We have carefully kept armchair psychiatry out of this article, and yet here is this other article which is nothing but. What I have consistently argued here, and what is still listed at the top of this page as consensus, is that we do not cite mental health evaluations from people who have not personally examined his mental health. I am convinced that to do otherwise is to violate WP:BLP. So I argue strongly against adding any such material to this article, and I don't know what to do about the Health article since it has apparently been nurtured to its current state for nearly a year. Its earliest draft was ENTIRELY about mental health and all the people saying he's sick - not even a mention of physical health as cover for the title "Health of Donald Trump" One of its very first edits was to insert a smear from a political rival: "As early as February 2016, presidential candidate Jeb Bush speculated that Trump had mental health issues, stating "I’m not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, but the guy needs therapy". Is this the kind of material we have descended to including in a BLP? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Health of Donald Trump has passed an AfD. Wouldn't there be a note near the top of its ATP? I think an AfD would be a healthy thing to do. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The article Health of Donald Trump is a reliably sourced and perfectly ok article that has existed for years, and that even pro-Trump editors have contributed to. Your claim that "we (who?) do not cite mental health evaluations from people who have not personally examined his mental health" has no basis in Wikipedia policy, reliable sources covering this topic, law or anything else that is relevant. Wikipedia has thousands of articles that include expert commentary from experts who haven't personally met the subject. The idea that only the personal "court physician" of a head of state is entitled to have an opinion on his personality has no basis in fact.

The problem with this highly idiosyncratic opinion is

1. it is presented as a pseudo-legal requirement that trumps the massive coverage of the topic in reliable sources, but is in reality based on a completely non-binding request from a private association within one particular profession within a single country
2. it has been massively ignored and rejected by members of that profession even within their own country; as they have continued to comment on his mental health in newspapers, on television, in academic papers and books, conferences
3. it never had any relevance at all outside of the US, and numerous experts from other countries in Europe and elsewhere have weighed in on Trump's personality/mental health, both in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019
4. the request was related to the personal conduct of psychiatrists in the US, not public discourse. It does not follow from that request that Wikipedia shouldn't include such discussion, that's just SYNTH/OR. We could even base our entire discussion of his personality on experts from other professions (such as psychologists) and other countries.

in essence, the idea is a WP:FRINGE POV as there is no evidence of any reliable sources taking it seriously. It was briefly reported merely as a request within just one profession in just one country that experts disagreed with and that high quality reliable sources (NYT etc.) massively ignored. --Tataral (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Health of Donald Trump. It seems balanced and everything seems properly attributed. There is nothing in WP:BLP prohibiting us from including those sorts of medical conclusions. WP:SPECULATION is relevant, but that's really about future events. R2 (bleep) 23:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of content where outside actors are trying to diagnose Trump without having treated him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is this opposition based on? Especially considering that the argument for inclusion is based on clearly articulated Wikipedia policies and guidelines (specifically the existence of an abundance of reliable sources discussing the topic and that figure prominently in the coverage of Trump, as well as the existence of an in-depth Wikipedia article that is an established part of the Donald Trump article suite and therefore should be summarized here)? --Tataral (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: If reliable sources of good quality quoted "outside actors" (I assume you mean from-a-distance diagnoses) in their reporting, then that would pass muster for inclusion in a Wikipedia article if such content satisfied the other usual constraints. With that said, the content would have to be awfully compelling to get my support. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Meh. Propaganda and Tabloid journalism exist, arguably are the bulk of coverage WEIGHT in politics for now and there simply is no clean source. There’s just a market for WP:SENSATIONAL and marketing to a particular audience. I don’t blame various players (NYT, MSNBC, Acosta, Maddox) for playing distorted or faked portrayals to their markets any more than I blame other players (Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh) for doing the same. It seems one gets $2 million USD per tabloid book or stand up a POV ‘non-profit’ so kind of hard to expect that SOMEbody won’t make stuff up. I just advocate WPP plus (a) a 48 hour waiting period vs new hot story on this morning’s feed, (b) checking with left-central BBC.com as a mark of what’s internationally noteworthy, and (c) checking the both Fox and MSNBC also to judge what the full range of mainstream media take is. Generally I’m also skeptical and contrarian, have a few personal views (US is about 6-12 months behind UK/world in general trend that Trump’s just a part of, etc) and am strongly preferring simple fact vs yet another of the crafted spins. Markbassett (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: If the deletion discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump‎ continues on its current trajectory, that article will be merged here. As I have stated there, I have no particular objection to merging this to Donald Trump, but we should take care to avoid losing reliably sourced content. Therefore, if merged, any merger should include all material that is reported in sources that Wikipedia generally considers reliable (i.e. claims reported in sources such as CNN, BBC News, NBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Hill, The New Yorker, Time, Vox, Vanity Fair, Mother Jones, The New Republic, Forbes, The Independent, U.S. News, and The Atlantic). If there are concerns that these sources are themselves making false or defamatory claims, then the solution is to carefully indicate that the claim is arising from the source, and not an assertion of fact on Wikipedia's part. bd2412 T 18:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point. I still have a problem with armchair psychoanalyses, no matter the source, as I stated in the current consensus discussion. However, given the enormous info we now have, including his near constant twitter feed that seems like a direct connection to his unfiltered thoughts; I’m beginning to feel as though he’s more open to analysis than the typical, hour a week patient. The amount merged is likely to require a long discussion. O3000 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Try finding a mental health professional that says he does not have issues..it`s not so much that opinion doesn`t count but if you do and put it in the article it will be supported but the same who want to keep the opposite out regardless of the truth. 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Special counsel investigations

I have noticed for some time that this section has been almost irresponsibly underdeveloped save for William Barr's summary which has been under scrutiny for quite some time. I would like to propose that Mueller's recent statements, particularly his statement about "We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work. As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that." as well as his statements specifying that the Special Council did not charge Trump because "Under a long-standing Department of Justice policy, “a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that, too, is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.” should be added under the basis that this is a more accurate summary of the Mueller Report and due to it being a statement from Mr. Mueller himself - it should be added, as Barr's summary doesn't paint a clear picture of what the report says has been under scrutiny for misrepresenting the Special Council's findings. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the problem but I disagree with the proposed solution. The problem is that the "Special Counsel investigation" draws too heavily on unreliable statements by Barr. We only did this at the time because, before the Mueller Report was released, Barr's statements were all we had. Now we know that Barr's statements haven't been fully consistent with the reliable sources. Instead of adding Mueller's statements to Barr's statements, the appropriate solution is to re-write our description of the Mueller Report in our own voice, drawing on what independent secondary sources have said about it. R2 (bleep) 17:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I can agree with that. The quotes don't need to be directly posted but there has been way too much information released about the report to keep this section as small (and outdated) as it is. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo and 50.69.20.91: - done. check it out. starship.paint (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: - Tech note, you can't ping an IP, the software requires an account on the receiving end. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks Mandruss. starship.paint (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: - I think I fixed all the missing refs regarding the Mueller Report. starship.paint (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Barrs letter (not a summary) seems accurately portrayed. I’ll recommend instead this part of 6.6 Investigations being far too long should be trimmed to just a link to the Special Counsel article, keep para 1 the start/overview, keep para 4 the March 22 concluded, and keep para 9 as Muellers summation. Cut a lot else as non-BLP and detail which is better written in the other article. Cut the para 2 NYT Editorial, cut para 3 desire for interview as a non-happening, cut para 5 what’s in Mueller vol1 as details, cut para 6 Mueller vol 2 details, cut para 7 Barr/Mueller on obstruction rules, cut para 8 Trump reaction one-liner as OFFTOPIC of the investigations of Trump. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Mark. In para 2, I don’t find a NYT editorial, just two news stories and an analysis/fact check. I would be OK with deleting all of para 3 as news-of-the-day but I’d like input from more people first. I would absolutely keep the details in para 5 and 6, they are important to his biography. I’m not finding Barr/Mueller in para 7, maybe deleted already? I agree with removing the final paragraph (8); it is off topic to the subject of the subsection, which is “Special Counsel investigation, and I will remove it. If the "investigate the investigators" drive turns into an actual investigation, notable on its own and with reportable findings, a new section could be added on it then. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I can't remove paragraph 8 right now per 1RR. Later, or someone else can. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I previously tried to look at what Mark was saying but the paragraphs didn’t match. starship.paint (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN Things there moved&changed a bit since 31 May, so here goes again.... I suggest reduce the section to a 3 paragraph SUMMARY similar to the others parts of the section, particularly as there is a separate article to point at where things are in more detail and better conveyed. (And seems really not biographical if Russia is part 1 or part 2.). So I was suggesting keeping only  : wikilink to the investigation article, para 1 (“On May 17, 2017”...) intro start and describing the investigation scope, para 4 (“On March 22, 2019”...) it concluded, and the para 9 two lines line (“Upon announcing”...) Mueller closing remark. Intentionally dropping paras that seemed side remarks as excess and the two longish paras trying to cover internal structure/basis as not going to be able to do that well in anything short so that’s the wikilink job. Just think better done as a 3 paragraph summary to identify the investigation and give a wikilink. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

For future reference, I believe Mark was commenting on this [37] version of the page. starship.paint (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the “investigate the investigators” paragraph (which was #8). I would also be OK with removing the entire paragraph about attempts to interview Trump (“Mueller attempted…”) as basically play-by-play news reporting. As I said before, I think we need to keep the three paragraphs summarizing Barr’s letter and the Mueller report. Personally I would delete the final paragraph (“Upon announcing…”) where Mueller repeats his conclusions, as redundant. Basically this investigation has been a continuing theme through his presidency and an obsession of Trump for the past two years; I think it is important - yes, even for this biography - to convey what the investigation concluded. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with Markbassett on removing paragraphs 6 and 7, especially 7, we had one whole volume (182 pages) on Donald Trump's possible obstruction, we're not going to cut that out, it's a significant part of his life now. Several have said that Barr principal conclusions were misleading, and I agree with that, so I cannot endorse a mere paragraph 4. I endorse MelanieN's comment, and have trimmed paragraph 3 and the (former para 9, at the time of my edit para 8). starship.paint (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I have restructured the section of Special Counsel investigation. It has only 6 paragraphs now [38]. We've cut that section from 1,269 words (100%) to 699 words (55%). Perhaps we should look at the other sections like Associates. starship.paint (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Net worth in the infobox

Do we really need this? All we have is an ever-changing number based on an estimate, and this is a parameter not normally found in biographies of presidents. As I said in a previous thread, discussing the wealth of an individual is vulgar. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say it should be there. It's not normally found in biographies of presidents, but keep in mind this article predates his presidency, and his notability prior to becoming president was primarily based on his perceived wealth and business acumen. Rather than comparing the infobox to other presidents, I would compare it to other people known for their wealth, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and John D. Rockefeller. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I considered this, and dismissed it. Whatever Trump has been known as, he is now chiefly known as an American president. JFK was also spectacularly wealthy, but we don't mention his net worth in the infobox either. Moreover, we don't even know if the dubious Forbes data is accurate, because it changes constantly and it is disputed by Trump himself. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

No. Not only is it unusual to include this for a politician, it is a highly dubious number - as Scjessey points out. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

See, he wouldn't be president if he wasn't already known for what he has been known as prior to becoming president (This is true of any president, really. Name recognition is important for a candidate's viability.). Also, the fact that he's been known to exaggerate his wealth is an important part of the story of who he is and how he became president. This is the biography article, not the article about his presidency, and I feel it's important to continue to present the full picture of him, not just the most recent chapter of his life. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 01:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I generally oppose appeals to precedent, which is mostly the result of democratic voting by editing—little thought and no discussion. Such appeals also tend to impede evolution of the encyclopedia. More specific to this case, Trump is hardly the typical or average president, so precedents like this wouldn't apply anyway. I wish the number were more reliable, but it's attributed to a respected source and identified as an estimate—somewhat conspicuously, the only footnote in the infobox. On balance I lean toward include/no change. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Net worth changes annually - it's great clickbait for Forbes and Money Magazine, etc. but it doesn't belong in the infobox of any BLP. It could be said in the article that he was worth $X at the beginning of his term and $X when he left office, or something along that line. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable to me. In the article, we can give the numbers proper context, but I just don't like seeing the naked, unexplained number in the infobox. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I expect footnotes to be read by any readers who care much about the associated content; otherwise there would be little point to having them. That's the explanation of the number. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep it. "Billionaire" is a fairly defining item in biographical terms, so suits the BLP. It was also noted for his presidency as a comparative to other presidents, along with his being the one without prior government or military service. Lastly, this is a long-time consensus with lots of debates in the past, so there should be preference for respecting past consensus and the status quo and leaving it alone. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Leave it out. No one knows what his net worth is. TFD (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep – Trump's net worth is one of the most often requested piece of information about him, and current estimates by three different organizations are in the same ballpark ± 1 billion. — JFG ^talk 08:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  3.02B ± 180M. The ballpark is 360M wide. The infobox could show the average of the three estimates, 3.05B, but that would be more precise than two of the estimates, and it's pretty close to the 3.1B we have now. I think we're good. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  Does our main article even mention the other estimates? No, right? starship.paint (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  No, right. Another reason not to show an average. Thanks for pointing that out. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - It`s relevant.2600:1702:2340:9470:4508:F435:DD46:91FB (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC) — 2600:1702:2340:9470:4508:F435:DD46:91FB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Bias in this article

Not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As is so common, Wikipedia once again shows its political bias, like with so many politically-charged articles. Like with so many of them, this is pretty much nothing more than a hit piece. Go ahead and check the Wikipedia page of any other president (of any country) and see if you can find sections with titles like "false statements" or "racial views". Heck, even the section titled "recognition" still manages to be a hit piece against him rather than, you know, being actually about positive recognition. There are entire sections in this article that are nothing more than opinion pieces, which is against Wikipedia's own policies (as a prime example, the section named "support from the far right", which is nothing but somebody's subjective opinion. Who the f--k is "Michael Barkun" and why is his personal opinion cited as if it were fact?) This hit piece of an article is completely ridiculous and there isn't a shred of neutrality about it. But, of course, the mob that controls Wikipedia doesn't care. That has become quite clear over the years. Wopr (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Q: Who the f--k is "Michael Barkun" A: Michael Barkun (born 8 April 1938) is professor emeritus of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, specializing in political extremism and the relationship between religion and violence. An answer you could have found on your own by following the wikilink in the article and reading the first sentence there. Q: and why is his personal opinion cited as if it were fact? A: It is not. It is presented as his opinion, which is fully and clearly supported by Wikipedia policy. And so on. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—all of it, not just the title and the nutshell—before loudly proclaiming that a few dozen experienced editors are incompetent and/or corrupt. Will somebody please write the fully articulated Trump-specific response to such posts in a separate page? Then we could just link to it. BullRangifer? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Trump-specific response? "NO BIAS. Article is very neutral & very cool. 👌 We've got 18 Angry Redlinkers who are very unfair to this article. 👐 The only collusion is on the other side! EDITOR HARASSMENT!" /s starship.paint (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Neutrality is defined as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Ergo, it is impossible to say something is biased without looking at the reliable sources that have been published about it. And if the reliable sources about this president focus more on false statements than for other presidents.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC) You described perfectly what I like to call "bias by proxy", which Wikipedia very frequently engages in, when it comes to heated political subjects. The trick to maintain the appearance of "neutrality" and to simply "report what reliable sources are saying" is to pick biased sources and declare them "reliable" (with complete disregard to how biased those sources might be). Everybody knows that the vast majority of news outlets, for instance, are heavily politically biased, especially in this day and age, and are biased mostly in one direction only, and will have no qualms about bypassing journalistic ethics in order to create political hit pieces and propaganda for their political side. It's highly convenient that the major news corporations in the west are heavily biased towards the extreme left of the political spectrum. Thus it's likewise convenient to just take the biggest ones, and declare them "reliable sources". Thus a Wikipedia editor can object to edits that aim to bring actual neutrality to this kind of article by saying "this is a long list of my sources, where's yours?", conveniently ignoring how infamously biased those sources might be. (If I'm not mistaken, for example the SPLC is still classified as a "reliable source" by Wikipedia, even though everybody knows how ridiculously politically biased they are. But the SPLC is too much of a convenient source to be dropped. It's the perfect organization to cite; it's big, it's famous, it has influence, and its obvious bias can be safely ignored.) Therefore the articles maintain the illusion of being well sourced, by having tons and tons of citations, but they hide the fact that those sources are themselves biased. In other words, Wikipedia regularly engages in bias by proxy. And thus we get pretty much a hit piece against Donald Trump, while other left-leaning politicians have very clean, neutral and even exalting articles written on them (where, if there's any controversy about that person, it's often mentioned only briefly and in passing, and even if the controversy is large enough, it's still dealt with much more neutrally.) One way I have noticed to see how much political bias is in an article is to read its lede and its table of contents: The more of a right-wing persona non-grata the person is, the more lede space will be dedicated to smearing that person, and the more section titles in the table of contents will be about negative things. The more of a left-wing person it is, the opposite is true. Just take any of the political celebrities (politician or non-politician) out there, and check their ledes and tables of content, and you'll clearly see the conspicuous difference. Wopr (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Do you have anything to contribute? Or, are you just here to rant about how anyone who doesn't agree with your world view is an extreme leftist? O3000 (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC) I have observed numerous editors come to talk pages to assert that an article is fundamentally biased, and they commonly make sweeping statements of purported truths without any substantiation, but they make no effort to edit the article to "correct" their perceive bias. I recommend you try that. soibangla (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC) The OP clearly doesn't know Thing 1 about content policy, so I wouldn't recommend they try that until they gain some experience and do a lot of learning (and this article is not a particularly good place for new editors, in my opinion). It would only cause disruption and frustration as their edits are repeatedly reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Wopr can't edit the article directly since they have only made ~60 edits. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Wopr, you need to realize that NPOV doesn't mean "neutral", as in "no bias". It means that editors should not add their own flavor to content. It is the editors who must be neutral when they edit, as NPOV makes it clear that neither sources nor content must be neutral. We document what RS say, and that is rarely neutral. In fact, neutral sources are rare and very boring. People don't come here to read duh about duh. They come here to read about "the sum total of human knowledge," and it is our editorial duty to document exactly that, and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage. Trump doesn't have a get-out-of-jail-free card here, and neither does anyone else. Whitewashing and censorship are both editorial actions which violate NPOV. With Trump, we're dealing with a uniquely controversial person, one who loves controversy and creates it at every opportunity, especially when anybody else is getting attention. He'll steal the limelight from dead D-day soldiers. He is also unique in his ability to constantly lie more than any other person ever fact checked and shoot himself in the foot every day. RS document all of this, so naturally our articles about Trump aren't going to be a rosy picture of a not-so-rosy person. For that picture, go to fake news, such as Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. Normal politicians and presidents get more normal coverage because their actions are more normal. No one ever claimed that Trump was normal in any sense of the word. He would be offended to be classed as such a person, so let's just honor his choice to be who and what he is and document what RS say about him. Okay? For more on this subject, I go quite a bit deeper in my essay: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Talks about "neutral editors", shows his own biases in great length. How wonderful. Can you find a "false statements" section in the pages for, let's say, Hillary Clinton or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, even though they have infamously uttered many? Of course not. And why not? Well, what do you think? Wikipedia bias. Those articles are not hit pieces. This one is. And of course any time these things are discussed, some editor will have his own last word to say and lock the conversation with the "this is not a forum" excuse, depriving the original poster from giving a response. How utterly convenient. Wopr (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Sources

Investigations

Has there been discussion previously of developing the "Investigations of Donald Trump" page, which currently redirects to this article? The NYT reported there were 29 open investigations as of May 2019. Would it make sense to retitle that "Investigations of President Donald Trump?Farcaster (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a notable topic in itself. Feel free to start a dedicated article, if you've got the energy. — JFG ^talk 21:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes @Farcaster:, there was a discussion either on this page or his presidency's page, but apparently nobody has the time or energy to do so. starship.paint (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The tricky thing is that it's hard to find content that would be in scope. Most of the content that editors might think of is about investigations into Trump's associates, not verifiably about Trump himself. There has been some recent discussion about this at User talk:BullRangifer/sandbox/Surveillance of Donald Trump and associates. R2 (bleep) 17:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Political bias

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.

---

The anti-trump bias is strong in this thread. My question is why so much hatred for a president that is resurrecting the US Economy. Is it the things he has said? (I've said much worse)

Where did all the racist, misogynist, homophobic blah blah blah start?

Why is ok for Hillary Clinton to carry around hot sauce and think all black people look the same but nope she isn't a racist.

Political bias is ripping country apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarred Price (talk • contribs) 00:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This talk page is not designed to host general comments about politics, see WP:NOTFORUM. However, feel free to make specific suggestions on how to improve the article, backed with sources. You may also discuss the hot sauce incident at Talk:Hillary Clinton. — JFG ^talk 11:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Whataboutism. starship.paint (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.