Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mental health controversy of Donald Trump

Mental health controversy of Donald Trump

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Mental health controversy of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is essentially the same scope as the article that was just merged/redirected following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump. It appears the author created this fork after participating in that AfD which didn't go their way. Already BOLDLY redirected per the AfD and was reverted. So here we are. GMG^talk 20:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This was intended as a much more MENTAL HEALTH-centered discussion, with sources that center around mental health professionals. You can see that Bandy X. Lee's group of 37 top mental health experts, and then the group of thousands of mental health professionals who organized around this issue, are given much more focus than Donald Trump. Now their group is international with members from at least three continents. This evolution is historic and does not revolve around Donald Trump as much as the unprecedented mental health concerns around a president. This does not fit under "Donald Trump," as it concerns the Goldwater rule, the importance of presidential fitness, and the potential dangers when a president cannot be tested for mental fitness, which are issues that go beyond him. It could equally be labeled "Mental health controversies of presidents," with Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and JFK added on, if helpful, but Donald Trump would still be unprecedented by far. Thanks.--Dallbat 21:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallbat (talk • contribs)

Yes, well, those are some impressive mental gymnastics, but this is still just a WP:POVFORK to circumvent the consensus of the previous deletion discussion. Both Lee and her book have their own stand alone articles, and content about those subjects should go there, although that content should not be written like a political advocacy tabloid as this article currently is. GMG^talk 21:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The merged article seemed anemic in content to start with, unaware of the historic significance. Mental health professionals are not political activists, and this has never occurred before in U.S. history (although there was a non-issue regarding Barry Goldwater, of only 10% speaking irresponsibly, which FACT Magazine blew up and made into a scandal). You still don't hear much now, but what you do is significant: it is apocalyptic, urgent, and a consensus. It should not be buried in an article already too long to be read with sustained attention.--Dallbat 23:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for righting great wrongs and it is also not a vehicle for political advocacy. GMG^talk 22:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I know. I genuinely, profoundly believe this is an issue that should not be whitewashed for political reasons, either.--Dallbat 00:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallbat (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom This is speculation by people not necessarily medically qualified and is clear violation of the professional standards Goldwater rule in particular and there concerns about the reliability of physicians who evaluated Trump and has both WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS issues and privacy violations .In addition it is WP:COATRACK ,WP:POVFORK and clear violates WP:NPOV meet to disparage the subject.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • These are the most renowned members of the field, not just one but almost all of the most respectable, and the reason why I believe the issue is so important. More psychiatrists are against the Goldwater rule than for it.--Dallbat 10:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallbat (talk • contribs)
• Strong Keep A lot of idiotic notions have been thrown about on this issue from the lack of expert input in the public arena. Many of the shrinks who spoke up are legendary figures, and somebody has to challenge the American Psychiatric Association's unethical Goldwater rule. Also, Donald Trump is a walking textbook of mental health issues that the nation can learn from for generations to come. HeadDoc911 (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC) — HeadDoc911 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Merge and redirect Delete Much of it is about the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and can be merged there if there's helpful info and sources not already in that article. This article is not written from a neutral POV, and is nearly a polemic. The "keep" statements arguing from a WP:RGW stance are disturbing. The article could properly be titled Bandy X. Lee's crusade. I made a few edits to fix language that was not supported by the sources, then gave up. edited: changed my !vote to make it clear that I do not believe this article should be kept. Schazjmd (Talk) 22:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is my first time creating a page, partly in response to my original questioning about motive for deleting the Health of Donald Trump page, since it was proposed on the very day it was announced that the mental health/fitness issue would be presented to Congress. I take full responsibility for the tone, and thank you for your corrections. But I believe the issue needs addressing one way or another and not just as one person's crusade (which it is not).--Dallbat 00:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dallbat:, when I said it could be titled her crusade, I meant that would be a title that properly reflected the contents and the way it's written. (Not that I think we should rename the article.) I can tell that you are very passionate on this topic, which is understandable. I really do sympathize. But you're trying to use an encyclopedia to further a cause, and that's not what it's for. Schazjmd (Talk) 00:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Schazmd:So here is my dilemma: As a health professional, I have some specialized knowlege I can offer (I have written several encyclopedia articles, as have many of my colleagues, but we are not Wikipedia people). This platform seems to be dominated mostly by writers who are specialists in a certain style of writing. Even though the previous article had many errors in it, I would not have bothered to write another one as long as a Health of Donald Trump article existed--it is understood that Wikipedia is not a Wiley encyclopedia--but now the deletion of even that article is extremely worrisome, further highlighting that this topic is critical and urgent, not to be covered up further. So would you not help improve rather than eliminate?--Dallbat 16:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm one of the psychiatrists who can vouch for this being a medical consensus, which is why they used ethics to gag us rather than medical evidence. Would you say that the opinion of the average Joe is the same as a brain doctor's when it comes to brain science, and would you prevent actual brain doctors from making any comment if a president were unconscious? I think not.HeadDoc911 (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete This is essentially a compiled set of comments on Trump made by some mental health professionals. Most of these do not merit an article. Viztor (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense: how would they get their word out if not compiled? This is why an article that informs better is necessary. If it isn't a majority vote, I say improve the writing, but allow for expertise to be shared.HeadDoc911 (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Hi, I am one of the members of the organization we created because of one of our professional's organization's resurrection of the outdated Goldwater rule. The illegal use of that rule to gag professionals is why the public hasn't heard much about this issue, but it is indeed an important, if not the defining, issue of this presidency. I vote to keep or create a similar article. Thanks. WendyMD (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep After this weeks harrowing instability over what could lead to an uncontrollable war, I think there should be a page people could go to. Disclaimer: I am a member of the said organization that can be found here: . So far, it's the only place you can go if you are one of the more than half of psychiatrists who disagree with the Goldwater Rule or the large majority of MH professionals who have no such rule but are worried about the President. CPMSW (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)