Talk:Donald Trump

Open RfCs and surveys

• None.

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

Omissions from the introduction

1. Why doesn't the intro state Trump's record low approval rating, as described in the body? [at Donald Trump#Political image.]
2. Why doesn't it describe his record low rating among journalist fact-checkers? [also described in the body: Donald Trump#Campaign rhetoric and Donald Trump#False statements.]
3. Why doesn't it convey the Trump administration's record number of criminal indictments?
4. Why is it silent on the record number of resignations under Trump?

I propose that these omissions from the introduction be corrected. EllenCT (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Check the archives of this page, that has all been discussed. PackMecEng (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I just did for #3 and find no discussion of including the record number of criminal indictments in the introduction, so would you please provide links? EllenCT (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

In order: "approval ratings" are extremely variable, I'm sure Nixon had worse at some point. There's nothing particularly meaningful to say there. Regarding fact-checkers, "many of his public statements were controversial or false" should cover that, though it's a bit buried in its current location. Regarding indictments: the Russia thing is already talked about, I'm not sure that a "record number of criminal indictments" specifically is worth discussing. The resignations/firings are certainly unusual, if you have a specific sentence to propose I might support that addition. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's just take the first one. How "extreme" is "extremely variable"? And "at some point" is not the appropriate point of comparison. The appropriate point of comparison is "the same number of days into a presidency". And the only president who has come close to being so unpopular for so long is Gerald Ford (Nixon (almost) never dipped below 50%, while Trump has never broke 46%) [1]

That's the thing - why this is such a glaring omission. Yes, maybe for a "normal" president, approval ratings are indeed "extremely variable" (generally not true, but let's say it is). But not for *this* president. They've been consistently low, staying in the range between 37% and 45%. THAT makes it a notable fact in and of itself and THAT is why it should be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

(the other unique aspect of this presidency, is that most presidents start with HIGH approval ratings and then go downhill from there (exception is Bush Jr. who got a big boost after 9/11. And Reagan and Clinton managed a bit of a comeback towards the end of their second term). Trump started low and stayed low.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The proof of his unpopularity will be GOP losses in the House in November. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe (Congress is generally more unpopular than the President, and that unpopularity tends to be more bipartisan). But that's a separate topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Side discussion about editing environment and sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree with these questions, although arguably they apply even more to the article Presidency of Donald Trump. The fact that #1, #3 and #4 - which are very very widely discussed in sources - are absent from that article is a reflection of the very successful campaign waged by pro-Trump editors to keep anything remotely negative out of our Trump related articles (I believe this was noted by User:Jimbo Wales. And the main reason they have been able to do this, despite representing a minority of editors on Wikipedia is the ridiculous "cannot restore without consensus" (a consensus which, with just a bit of bad faith, is easy to sabotage) "Discretionary Sanctions" which has given an effective right veto to a small but very vocal and tendentious minority. The administrator who invented out of thin air and imposed this sanction is gone but his sanction remains (and even he eventually had second thoughts about it). Unfortunately Wikipedia has always suffered from extreme inertia, so good luck remedying this situation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Clarification! See User:Jimbo Wales's contemporaneous comment about "our Trump-related articles". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Volunteer Marek: The editing restrictions improve article stability, and they work both to quench pro-Trump and anti-Trump partisanship. The "consensus required" provision is akin to a strict enforcement of WP:BRD, which has prevented many edit wars. The list of codified consensus also avoids fruitless repeats of prior discussions on controversial issues. The article would be a total mess without this code of conduct. — JFG talk 19:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC) "The editing restrictions improve article stability" - they improve stability by making it impossible to edit the article. You know what else "improves stability"? Full protection and article lock down. No more edit warring. Because no one can edit. This has pretty much the same effect. "Article stability" is a bullshit goal that only clueless administrators who don't care about content believe in. Or, I guess, those who realize that "article stability" preserves their preferred POV version. Like I said, the practical result of this particular AC/DS sanction is to give veto power to a single pro-Trump editor or a couple pro-Trump editors who can effectively block any improvements to the article if these aren't sufficiently obsequious of the "god-emperor". That's the sorry state we're in right now. And no, the "consensus required" provision is nothing like WP:BRD. The "consensus required" provision is a straight up veto power over any changes to the article. It's actually very much against the spirit of Wikipedia which relies on collaborative and gradual improvement, as well as being bold.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC) If you think that editing restrictions amount to "veto power" for pro-Trump editors, surely you must recognize they also amount to "veto power" for anti-Trump editors. You have as much "veto rights" as your political opponents, and that's the way it should be because of the Five Pillars. We have been here long enough to see what a train wreck the article and the talk page were before the restrictions were imposed. I for one don't want to go back there. — JFG talk 22:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC) " surely you must recognize they also amount to "veto power" for anti-Trump editors." <-- this is true but it misses the point. That's NOT a good thing either. Giving any side, any editor (or in this case a group of editors) veto power is contrary to the values of the encyclopedia. Articles are suppose to be improved and updated, not stagnate because of a stalemate situation. (5 pillars have nothing to do with this) And actually there are two reasons why the situation isn't symmetric. First, it's just the nature of the Trump presidency itself. Let's face it, this presidency has stumbled from scandal to scandal, from one crazy tweet to another, from one lie to another, from one indictment to another, from one resignation to another appointment of some crazy person. Incidents that would have toppled any other administration occur on monthly or weekly basis. Most of the stuff that pops up organically is negative because, quite simply it's a negative presidency. In such a situation the veto power to keep negative OUT is worth much more than the veto power to keep the positive OUT for the very simple reason that with this president... there just isn't much positive anyway. The second reason why it's not symmetric just has to with the nature of the editors. I'm sorry to say, and yes, this is a generalization which does not apply to every editor, but broadly speaking the pro-Trump editors are a lot less likely to WP:GAME the restriction and Wikipedia policies and to act in bad faith. Why do you think there's a constant churn of topic bans for such editors going through WP:AE and WP:ANI? No, it's not bias, it's just that as a group, these pro-Trump editors are helluva more disruptive. And of course there's nothing surprising about this. Go to any other social media site like reddit or facebook or whatever and it's the same story - pro-Trump users (again, as a group) doing stupid, offensive shit, getting themselves banned then coming up with "cute" ways of trying to circumvent their restrictions. That's like the whole internet right now. So you have a situation where one side acts in good faith, the other side acts in bad faith... guess whom an absolutist sanction such as this one benefits most? It's a no brainer. It's a bad sanction. It kills articles. It goes against spirit of Wikipedia. And the 5 pillars.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC) I agree with you. Unlike you, I recognize the difference between my biased perspective and objective fact. Guy Macon recently expressed the situation quite well, and I paraphrase: "Modern politicans' ability to deceive us far exceeds our ability to detect deception." Under those circumstances there is very little room for Objective Truth about politicians, but many experienced editors on both sides persist in presenting their opinions as exactly that. Most of them fail to even recognize that they have a bias; they are simply among the righteous minority who have true integrity and clarity of vision. Sometimes courage of conviction is indistinguishable from a load of crap. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC) I'm not part of a minority. That's sort of the point. The majority of editors - close to consensus - agree with me. But this "veto power for each side" means that majority vs. minority doesn't matter. The minority - those with no consensus - have as much power as the majority.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC) The editing environment has never been worse than at present. The editing is entirely reactive, following day-to-day news items. Many articles have gone completely dead after tendentious deadlocks. And fringe/POV editors in any topic area will by definition be more highly motivated to disrupt articles than mainstream NPOV editors, because NPOV editing is relatively easy and relatively simple and the mainstream offers an abundance of RS from which to create valid content. Mainstream editors are generally content to see mainstream content. Fringe POV editors in any subject -- this has been widely noted for years -- are by definition aggrieved and motivated to challenge the mainstream narrative. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC) I disagree on the state of the editing environment: this talk page is astonishingly quiet compared to 2016 and the first half of 2017. However I agree on your rejection of fringe-POV editors: editing restrictions are a potent vaccine against them. — JFG talk 22:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC) This talk page is quiet for the reason Marek articulated. It's hamstrung by a dysfunction I tried to explicate further. The current restrictions have paralyzed the Politics pages because small groups of vocal and insistent editors claim there's "no consensus" by voting in ways that ignore or deny fundamental WP editing policies and guidelines. That was not the intent of the restrictions and that would not be permitted if there were a large group of Admins closely following these articles and the editors here. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC) "fringe/POV editors in any topic area will by definition be more highly motivated to disrupt articles" POV editors, yes. Just "fringe" POV editors? No. From my observation, the POV editors who daily take advantage of and game the system at the DS and AR articles are hardly fringe. The stalemate they create is why we can no longer have nice things in Wikipedia when it comes to editing ("nice things" being AGF, collaborative editing, and consensus the way it is meant to be). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC) I'm not sure "consensus required" would be a problem without the "informal polls" on every question -- where the first-mover gets to frame the question, narrowing it to a binary choice. Then the so-called poll, which is in fact a vote, can easily muster enough !votes to suggest that if it's not unanimous it's not consensus, even when the minority is arguing against good RS cited content or when it is advocating UNDUE, SYNTH, and cute twists of language to block restoration of a straightforward, well-sourced edit. Admins should be able to break these logjams, because they're basically arguments against content and sourcing PAG's, but there are not enough Admins paying attention to these articles. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC) That's hogwash. Some questions are quickly decided, some are settled (or not) by a quick survey, some require a broader debate via RfC. All methods of reaching consensus and improving the article quality are equally valid. Only bad-faith editors resort to "cute twists of language", as you say. — JFG talk 22:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC) If you seek to change the way things are done on this page, please do it separately. It fails basic principles of organization to scatter general comments about process throughout specific content discussions. Any change would require editor focus, thorough examination, and careful thought, and we can't begin to do that in a content discussion. Short version: You're off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

And this is not the Page semi-protected Presidency of Donald Trump article, so what goes on there is irrelevant to this none.

As to the points raised.

Why doesn't the intro state Trump's record low approval rating, as described in the body? Because it is a variable, and hardly one of the most important anythings about him.

Why doesn't it describe his record low rating among journalist fact-checkers, If you mean fact checking websites. Is his at a record low, a source for that please (and also again this would be variable).

Why doesn't it convey the Trump administration's record number of criminal indictments?, is it a record number it is lower then a number of presidents and may of the incitements listed are nothing to do directly with him.

Why is it silent on the record number of resignations under Trump, valid point, can any one give a good reason why not?Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"Because it is a variable, and hardly one of the most important anythings about him." Again, as has been pointed out numerous times, this just isn't true. His approval rating has been fairly stable, moving in the 37-45 range, which is below pretty much ANY president (except Gerald Ford) since approval ratings were a thing. And while it may not be the "most important thing" here, it most certainly is one of the most important things about his presidency. So at the very least it should be in that article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I would not say a 10 point difference if fairly stable (ohh and in January it was as low as 36, now up to 40 (WELL LAST TIME i CHECKED)). And again this is not the place to discus what we do on another article. And a number of presidents have had lower approval ratings, hardly therefore a record breaker.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

8 point, not 10 point (45-37=8) and yes, that's pretty stable as the graphs on the link I provided illustrate. And no, it's not true that "a number of presidents have had lower approval ratings" (at least not at this point in their presidency). Only one that comes close is Gerald Ford. Did you even look at the source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Let’s remember that this article is a biography of Donald Trump. He has already lived a long and colorful and highly-reported life before becoming president, and we can’t let the lede act as if nothing else in his life mattered.

• 1: Approval ratings: not even in the article as far as I can tell; way too transient to be mentioned in the lede. AFAIK polling results are never mentioned in the lede of a currently serving politician (see Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel, etc.); there is usually some kind of summary in the lede for former presidents but Trump is not that. Maybe we could insert a link somewhere pointing to the highly detailed and current article Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration.
• 2 is discussed in the body in detail, in its own subsection “False statements”, and it is implied in the lede, in wording that has been repeatedly debated and consensus reached to do it exactly as it now is.
• 3 - several of the indictments are mentioned in the Investigation section.
• 4 is in the article, under Personnel.

I oppose adding any of these things to the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

All of the points raised have been addressed, no change is necessary until new developments occur. Same rationale as MelanieN. — JFG ^talk 19:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: the sources you are looking for are at Donald Trump#Political image for the record low approval ratings, and Donald Trump#Campaign rhetoric and Donald Trump#False statements for the worst fact-checking reviews in history. Yes, all of these facts are already in the body of the article. Why are these four record-breaking statistics among all presidents not worthy of inclusion in the introduction? EllenCT (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting political discussion and I am oh-so-tempted to join it, but it is still FORUM. Let's stick to the question of whether to add the suggested material to the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The problem is that with Trump, far more than any President in my lifetime, new developments occur pretty much every day. Hopefully without offending his fans or critics, I think it's fair to say that he does an awful lot of things far removed what has historically been seen as normal for a President. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC) No idea what your lifetime span entails, but I've been on this earth through 12 presidencies. Trust me, Trump is not unique in this. LBJ, from the moment he took office on through Nixon's inauguration in 1969, did a lot of things that were considered far removed from what was seen as normal (whatever "normal" is supposed to be). There was something new with him almost continually. Same with Nixon. Same with Bush 43. The Clinton presidency - and candidacy - had something new all the time that dominated the news. And that's really the issue: the news. We knew a lot about Clinton, especially during the second term. The internet helped with that, didn't it? And with Bush 43. Which brings me to the obvious point: it's the presence of the internet and 24/7 news that makes it seem Trump is doing something continually that is controversial. And let's be honest: media *is* biased against Trump, the "coverage" on him is continuous and continuously, overwhelmingly negative (see this Politio article from 2016 [2] and this WaPo article from 2017 [3]). Of course it seems as if Trump is constantly doing "stuff" because it's constantly in our faces and constantly negative (the numbers don't lie). Just imagine what it would have been like had the internet and 24/7 news existed when LBJ and Nixon were president. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC) I'm not as old as you but I certainly lived through some of these. And it was NOTHING like this. A scandal or big news would occur once every six months or so. This crap happens everyday. This is like that other discussion we had where despite your longer years you were completely off about factual matters (I'm too lazy to find a link to that discussion but I'm sure you remember).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC) There's certainly far more drama than Obama or Bush43. It's comparable to Clinton, though due to the internet and the Twitter echo chamber (which Trump partakes in) its effect is stronger. I'm not nearly old enough to remember LBJ. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC) I am posting my observations as a non-American. I stand by my comments from my perspective of a long way away. Maybe Twitter is the difference. Oh, I am not young. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Winkelvi, if you honestly think it’s just the press coverage that makes Trump seem like an entirely new kind of president - well, I really don’t know what to say except that I disagree. Trump is so different from the “norm” in so many ways that no president in my lifetime has compared to him. Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Bush - they at least mostly followed normal standards for behavior and actions of a president. Trump is something new. Just for starters: his continual attacks on the Justice Department and the FBI - what president, Republican or Democratic, has ever torn down the country’s law enforcement like that? His method for making policy decisions, apparently on impulse and without any input from, or even in opposition to, all his advisors. His wealth, and his secretiveness about how he got it; no president in memory has refused to show us his tax returns. His constant habit of lying - not the occasional exaggeration or twisting the truth like all politicians do, but simply stating as fact things that are false, and continuing to repeat them after they have been debunked; all the fact checkers (and thank God for them) say they can’t keep up, they have never seen any politician at any level with such habitual disregard for facts. These are not things that previous presidents did and we just didn’t have an internet to report them; they are a brand new approach to how to be president. And we have no idea how much further from the norm he is going to go. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC) @MelanieN: Noting that we are already in WP:FORUM territory, I'd like to correct one of the statements you just made: His method for making policy decisions, apparently on impulse and without any input from, or even in opposition to, all his advisors. From what I've seen since he took office, Trump takes lots of advice before making decisions, including listening to a broader set of stakeholders than just Washington officials and lobbyists. Despite the fear of impulsiveness that was prevalent upon his election, he has acted decisively yet calmly on many, many issues. He also knew to take steps backwards when it was necessary, so that the tango dance for example on North Korea is unlocking a situation that looked hopeless for decades. Observers are troubled by his "fire and fury" style, but when you ignore the noise and look at policy outcomes, the Trump presidency doesn't look all that different from any others. It is particularly remarkable given the hostility he had to face personally from his own party in addition to classic opposition. — JFG talk 05:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC) @JFG: I'm stunned by what you have said in your reply to MelanieN. Forget about WP:FORUM issues for a second, because the very real problem here is that Trump has effectively created a new baseline for what is considered normal, so that even the most extraordinary actions he takes are somehow rationalized by normally sane editors. The result is that the normal, consensus-building approach to editing the article is dramatically skewed so that the "new neutral" is anything but neutral. Wikipedia editors with years of experience editing political articles are struggling to cope with this new landscape, much in the same was as journalists and fact checkers are. Trump DOESN'T take "lots of advice" at all. Trump DOESN'T act decisively, he acts RECKLESSLY. Trump DIDN'T "take a step back" from dealings with North Korea, he JUMPED to be first to cancel the summit before the North Koreans could. Trump's presidency looks COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to any presidency there has ever been! We now live in a world where EIGHT Benghazi investigations were "not enough" to get to the bottom of "Hilary Clinton's crimes" (of which there were NONE), but a SINGLE investigation of the links between Trump's campaign, shady foreign characters, and the state-sponsored subversion of the US election process are "too much", because "FAKE NEWS" blah blah blah. Think about how much time was spent on the four dead in Benghazi, compared to the four THOUSAND dead in Puerto Rico. There are just so many things wrong with Trump and his presidency right now that we run into UNDUE problems almost every day! Trump is CLEARLY the worst president in the history of American presidents for a whole host of reasons, but the "normalization" of his behavior has led to this article being a ludicrously deferential caricature of the man that just doesn't reflect reality. Normal editing is impossible! At this point, we may as well just cross the streams. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Well, we'll all get hatted or scolded in a few minutes, but in support of what Scjessey says, I think that WP editors, if we are to carry out our mandate of writing DUE WEIGHT summaries of the narratives presented in RS, must have a sound fundamental understanding of American history, law and politics and the functioning of governmental and civic processes in the United States. And for the good of this Project, WP cannot allow its editing process to be hamstrung and hog-tied by denial of fundamental fact and context, which ultimately gives rise to widespread denial of WP policies and guidelines to cram OR, UNDUE, SYNTH and other proscribed narratives into hundreds of articles. It's like giving out tickets for jaywalking while hit-and-run driving accidents are happening all around us. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC) @Scjessey: Thank you for your heartfelt comments. I would certainly agree that Trump has set up a "new normal" in U.S. political discourse which was unthinkable in this country for decades. And indeed, his daily rejection of polite talk, established conventions or "political correctness" are key reasons why he was elected. For every American despising him, there is another American praising him, welcome to democracy. In addition, the relentless streams of unfiltered information in our connected era tend to amplify daily news and magnify emotional responses, which makes it harder to write sober encyclopedic prose. Despite this, and perhaps because of this, we can and must remain neutral. As Jimbo noted,[4] editors who are too emotional about this president should abstain from digging their heels in entrenched positions and turning the encyclopedic work into a battlefield. "For every American despising him, there is another American praising him" - again, not true. More like for every two Americans despising him there is one American praising him (maybe even 3:1, if you account for the fact that a lot of people who voted for him did so out of party loyalty or simply "against Hillary", not enthusiastically).Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC) Note that a Trump-like bluntness may be new to the U.S., especially to the younger generation there, but I am reminded of other leaders from the past few decades whose words and deeds were positively horrifying to a large fraction of their constituents: General Charles de Gaulle in France, Margaret Thatcher in the U.K., or more recently, Christoph Blocher in Switzerland. Even Ronald Reagan was mocked and ridiculed as an incompetent B-class actor when he took office. The Trump presidency is still young, however I can't help but notice that most of the dire predictions of gloom and doom have not come to pass. For the sake of the United States and the rest of the world, I am hopeful that the anger will subsume (on both sides) and that the country will prosper. — JFG talk 20:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC) @JFG: I think you're suffering from selective memory. A lot of that anger is reaction to people drawing intelligent-sounding equivalences between the likes of leaders like De Gaulle, Thatcher, and Reagan and a grown man who boasted about his ability to grab women by the pussy. A lot of people feel that should immediately disqualify any man for the U.S. presidency, regardless of his party or political platform. A lot of people think real men don't talk like that or think like that. I'm one of them, I'm proud to say. No sidestepping, please—show me one quote demonstrating such a lack of moral character from any of those three, or concede that no equivalence actually exists. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC) De Gaulle and Thatcher had great moral standing and cannot be compared to a pussy-grabber (although they were called immoral by their political opponents). But if we're talking about sexual mores and habitual lying, we could look at François Mitterrand who a) kept his mistress and illegitimate child at the Élysée Palace all along his presidency while silencing the press (the affair was only revealed after his second presidency and close to his death) and letting taxpayers foot the bill for security, and b) lied to the French people about his medical reports, hiding a serious form of cancer that he carried for most of his time in office, bullied his personal doctor with death threats from the secret service, and had said doctor's book seized and all copies physically destroyed in 1995, even after the secret was out. In spite of all this, he is still considered one of the greatest presidents of the modern French Republic. Oh, Mitterrand also collaborated with Nazis during the war, faked his own assassination, wiretapped journalists and actresses, and drove one of his Prime Ministers to suicide while blaming the press. Yeah, tell me about morals; Trump's antics are not all that exceptional. — JFG talk 04:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC) Aside from being a classic case of Whataboutism, this description of Mitterrand is also (mostly) some fake ass news. If Mitterrand was alive it would be a BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC) None of these other people you mention were that far out of the "norm" already expected in their respected countries. I'm talking about a comparison between Trump and other US presidents. Things he's done that would normally receive whole sections in the articles of other presidents have been whittled down to single sentences, or omitted entirely, because there simply isn't enough space to document it all. We're talking about Silvio Berlusconi levels of behavior, coupled with Putin levels of corruption and Robert Mugabe levels of moral turpitude. As for your comment about "emotional editors" not participating, at this point we are all emotional. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC) "if you honestly think it’s just the press coverage that makes Trump seem like an entirely new kind of president" MelanieN, I never said anything of the kind. I was responding to HiLo's comments, "with Trump, far more than any President in my lifetime, new developments occur pretty much every day". Never mentioned the type of man or president Trump is in comparison with the others preceding him. HiLo's comments were in regard to the developments we are made aware of, I responded to that very topic. Can't imagine how you thought otherwise. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 06:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ellen, there are a lot of things about him that are unique. We mention several of them in the lede: oldest, wealthiest, etc. There are others that we hint at. There are others that we don’t mention at this point; maybe their significance will become clearer in hindsight (after all we don’t know how his presidency is going to turn out) and will be added to the lede then. This is a very long article, the biography of a very full life; the lede is for summarizing the most important points; for now, the things you want to add to the lede do not seem to have achieved consensus that they belong there. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the fullness of his life somehow diminishes the noteworthiness of his record statistics among US presidents? EllenCT (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@EllenCT: I'm hard pressed to see that POTUS has had an especially "full life", but at any rate I don't think these articles are going to achieve stable excellent form until there are plenty of tertiary sources that analyze and recount the news developments and establish due weight. There are already many such sources about Trump's life -- well researched books, e.g. and it's distressing to see some -- like the acclaimed book for which the authors painstakingly interviewed Trump's Penn classmates and researched contemporaneous publications -- dismissed out of hand as if they were tabloid screeds. But there are many other books, and we should step back from the daily developments from time to time and fold in their narratives and characterizations of POTUS. I suspect you could find lots of under-represented information, well documented and verifiable in such sources. And it would be very hard for WP editors to argue against including the most prominent and noteworthy of it. SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"Indictments" number seem overly broad. There are no ties between the russian nationalist hacker indictments and Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:3d22:c76d:817f:9403 (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A web search on "ties between the russian nationalist hacker indictments and Trump" yeilds these top hits: "Here are members of Team Trump who are known to have Russian connections and the story lines that have made those ties relevant", our article Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, and, "the really juicy information to emerge Monday involved the confessions of George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign adviser who pleaded guilty this month to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with figures he thought had links to the Russian government. One of these contacts included an April 2016 exchange with a foreign professor with Russian affiliations who claimed the Kremlin had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton". But why is this an issue? I proposed that the introduction describe the record number of indictments (and record low approval, record low honesty, and record high resignations) not anything about the Russians, yet. EllenCT (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that most of the Mueller indictments are totally unrelated to Donald Trump as a BLP subject here. They are side effects of the investigation into Russian interference, which uncovered prior crimes and some lies to investigators. See the above thread #Peripheral indictments in lead for a more detailed reasoning. — JFG ^talk 21:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"Some lies to investigators" are crimes relating to their service to and affiliation with Trump. In the USA it's a crime to lie to the Feds, to banks, to government agencies, etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. And it's also correct that none of the Trump-related people were indicted for anything they did in relation with Russia, only Papadopoulos and Flynn for what they said, or rather omitted to say. Nobody linked to Trump was indicted for attempting to manipulate the election with the help of the Kremlin. — JFG ^talk 04:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet all of these people were part of the Trump campaign. "Oh, yes, Trump campaign people were indicted, but look they were indicted for THIS crime, not for THAT crime, so that makes it ok!" How does that make any sense? Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have too much respect for your sense of logic to spell it out for you. — JFG ^talk 15:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC on record low approval, dishonesty, indictments, and resignations

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.

---

Should Trump's (a) record low approval rating, (b) record low rating by fact-checkers, and (c) his administration's record number of criminal indictments and (d) resignations be included in the introduction? 23:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes to all as proposer, per above. EllenCT (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• This should be done as three separate proposals, because I support the first and oppose the others, and combinations like this here will make discussion a pain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Three or four? I added (a), (b), (c), and (d) per a suggestion on my talk page. EllenCT (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose. First, batching all of these together is a recipe for disaster. Second, please suggest specific wording. If this isn't WP:SNOW closed, I'll likely oppose most of this on the merits. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC) the updated version will do for voting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose suggested by Power~enwiki seems most sensible to me for this immediate one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is the specific wording I propose:

Trump has [a] the lowest approval of any US president since approval ratings have been measured and [b] has made a record number of false statements according to fact-checking organizations. [c] More of his administration's officials have been indicted and [d] more of them have resigned, than in any other presidency.

The proposed sources are those linked to in the enclosing section above. EllenCT (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ellen: You are, of course, free to offer an RfC if you want, but this has already been the subject of a lengthy informal discussion, and the comments from it will need to be taken into account somehow. We can’t just reset and start over, because it’s unreasonable to expect people to have to keep coming back to the board and repeating their answer over and over. This revised a-b-c-d format might work, particularly if people can say “as per my comments above”, rather than repeating their whole rationale. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Not lede worthy on a BLP of the entire man's life so far.--MONGO 23:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose all four, as not important enough for the lede, which should summarize only the MOST important material from the article. My further comments on this point are in the section above. Additionally oppose (c) because it is not in the article, and the referenced source does not actually support the assertion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe the first part is probably worthy of mention, but what has been proposed is not the correct way to present it. The other two aren't important. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per MONGO. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not significant enough to include in the lead section of a BLP. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - contrary to BLP and LEAD -- just not a major action or event to his life nor any significant effect, and minor note factually incorrect. For perspective, compare these to something like an impeachment which should go in lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Makes for interesting trivia but not significant enough to be included in the lead. --Hyperinsomniac (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments laid out by several editors in the extensive discussion above. OP should have recognized from said discussion that her proposal was not supported, and refrained from opening a doomed RfC. Suggest a WP:SNOW close by an admin. — JFG ^talk 09:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per all the above reasons. Keep in mind that this is not the article Presidency of Donald Trump. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not necessarily objecting to the content, but conflation of this nature is essentially editorializing and synthy. I think a snowball closure of this RfC should be considered, because this has attractive universal opposition. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

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

RFC extended discussion

Throwing this outside the !voting area. (A) as written I still feel is straight-up false; he may have the lowest first-year approval ratings, or it may be the most polarized approval ratings (a recent poll said his same-party approval was one of the highest; possibly due to anti-Trump Republicans declaring themselves independents). (B) could be a good replacement for the His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false. sentence, which is clearly a compromise. Regarding (C), are all the indictments related to the Russia stuff? If so, it should go somewhere in the existing paragraph, which is also starting to suffer from a large number of modifications. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Re (a), for many months the article has stated, "Presidential approval polls taken during the first ten months of Trump's term have shown him to be the least popular U.S. president in the history of modern opinion polls." Re (c) all seventeen of the people who have been indicted or pled guilty have been associated with Russian interference in the election, but some of their specific charges are unrelated to it, having to do with money laundering or making false statements on forms. EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Another reason why (c) should not be included is that as worded it is not accurate. You propose to say More of his administration's officials have been indicted  but that is not correct. Actually only one of the indicted people was an “official in his administration”; three others were associated with his campaign; the rest (the California man, the Dutch guy, and all the Russians) were neither.--MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

(A) Yuck yuck. The references only compare to polls in the third quarter of the first year of the presidency. Once I figure out how to explain that clearly, I'll propose a revision to that sentence. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

"public statements were controversial or false." This is an uncited claim, and as such falls under "opinion," especially the "false" part. Please either cite the claim or remove it, and ensure that proper distinction is provided between controversial and false claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.247.36 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Gorsuch appointment in the lead

I believe I supported this addition a year ago; at this point in his presidency I think there are more notable events to discuss in the lead section, and propose removing it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be in the lede, but I don't have a strong opinion. Very notable and has long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you proposing a simple removal, or a swap? I support the removal considering the developments since that time, and the fact that it was more so that he demanded the nuclear option rather than his specific pick. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a constant stream of addition requests, so I'm not proposing any particular swap. Someone will use the space soon enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A SCOTUS appointment is a big deal, and content on it has lasting value to Wikipedia since SCOTUS appointees have a seat until the end of time (or at least that's how it feels somewhat). I think it should stay, personally. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that a SCOTUS appointment is a big deal in general, but we need to consider in the context of a biography on the entire life of Donald Trump. WP:LASTING is about whether an event should have its own article not whether it should be mentioned in the lead of other article, MOS:LEAD is what we have to help us there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Support removing it from the lead. I looked at all the other current SCOTUSes and the biographies of Presidents who put them there; none of them are mentioned in the lead, and are given as much prominence in the article as appointments to other courts. I don't oppose summarizing all of Trump's court appointments, as short as possible. wumbolo ^^^ 19:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Keep it for now. It's still considered a major thing, as the "balance of power" in the Supreme Court had been hotly debated since the death of Antonin Scalia. More lead-worthy than the "Cuban thaw" as of today. — JFG ^talk 19:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Support removing it. When it was added it was a significant point, but in the ensuing months its significance has faded in comparison to other biographical content.- MrX 🖋 11:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove first, it's not personal so it's much more relevant to the Presidency article. Second, it's entirely due to the tireless efforts of Sen. Mitch McConnell and Trump just happened to arrive when it came to fruition. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Remove from lead - not a major part of the article so not really WP:LEAD indicated, and not major life event or choice or effect so not really WP:BLP -- it's OK it is here a bit, but as an act of presidential powers it would seem should be more or most of the coverage should be in the Presidency of Donald Trump article where it is part of the lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support removal - Only reason this unremarkable conservative dude was appointed was because Republicans, in an unprecedented act of gamesmanship that ignored Obama's election victory, refused to allow the appointment of an unremarkable centrist dude. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

From the discussion above, there is no appetite for keeping Gorsuch in the lede as is. There is however a hint that Trump's judicial appointments in general are significant enough to mention. So I would suggest this wording:

Trump made dozens of judicial appointments, including Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

This would be placed at the end of the paragraph on domestic policy actions. The Gorsuch nomination was at the beginning because that was one of the first things Trump did upon taking office; now we can see that with some perspective, and observing a continuous flow of judicial appointments. — JFG ^talk 09:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I support this version for now, but expect that in 12-18 months there will be enough other events that we'll be discussing its removal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

And I've BOLD-ly implemented this as an interim measure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Better to boldly remove it, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The key point about the large number of judicial appointments the Republicans have achieved in the past 18 months has been that there was an especially large number of vacancies due to their unprecedented action of having blocked virtually all Obama Administration nominations, and that many of the nominees had dubious qualifications for the roles and in at least one widely publicized case were forced to withdraw for gross and manifest inability to respond to typical Congressional screening. This context could be added in a compact, well-crafted sentence. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• User:SPECIFICO - Numbers in the lists for recent presidents seem to contradict this narrative. It seems more a matter of random fluctuations and re-balancing by alternating parties in office. Or maybe more accurately said as alternating the unbalancing ? In any case, nothing here seems suitable for BLP.

• List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama
• List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_George_W._Bush
• List of federal judges appointed by Bill Clinton

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by cardiologists

Following a few edits to the Health section, Mandruss restored a version that had been discussed in January and modified by other editors since then:

Several prominent physicians who have not examined Trump have commented that his weight, lifestyle, and test results do not indicate excellent health.

Today I wrote instead:

Several outside cardiologists have commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level should raise "serious heart concerns".

References

This is more precise and closer to the source article. I would advocate to keep this version. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

modified by other editors since then - Yeah, apparently there is some misunderstanding that a consensus has to be in the list to require prior consensus to change it—enough of one for that change to slip by without challenge. The prior consensus rule predates the list, so that can't be the case. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Bygones. Now what is your opinion on the above two versions? — JFG ^talk 11:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you know how I feel about these things. A lot of editor time is invested in the consensus version, I see no compelling reason to revisit, and I feel our limited time would be better spent on things that haven't received any attention. I think perfect is the enemy of good and the status quo is Good Enough. I don't claim that such discussions are strictly improper, but I generally sit them out. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

As you noted yourself, this one was a weak consensus, so that it's worth trying to improve the sentence. I may be a star-struck optimist, but little by little this article should make its way to GA promotion. — JFG ^talk 12:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

New versions seems better to me Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The term commented is OK, per WP:SAID. Yet in this context, the term said may be more accurate in describing the outside experts' statements. See the subtitle: Outside experts say, and the body Cardiologists said ... [a cardiologist] said ... said ... offered a reply ... said ... said ... said ... said ... added ... said ... said ... saying ... expressed concern ... said ... said ... calculated the risk ... said. The story uses the term comments twice, and only in describing the examining physician's statements: Dr. Jackson's comments ... his comments to reporters. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, "said" is fine but it's a bit dull; "commented" is still neutral. Otherwise we could use "opined", because those are opinions, but I'm afraid that would attract backlash. Apart from this choice of verb (which is used in both versions), which version would you rate better? — JFG ^talk 20:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

As written, the second version just won't do. We shouldn't say should. Nor ought we to say ought to. For the authors don't use either term in this context. Nor do the cardiologists. Also: Many readers and therefore many cardiologists believe Mr. Trump has no heart, in the sense of having no empathy. So why should they have any concerns about its health, or his? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the second approach is better, but I don't like "serious heart concerns" either. How about "commented that his weight, lifestyle, and LDL cholesterol level may raise concerns about his cardiac health."? --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That kind of emphasizes the euphemistic language, imo. Don't RS report this as an issue relating to the truthfulness of his medical reports rather than relating to diagnosis? I read the sum total of the reports, including the antics of Bornstein and Jackson as indicating that there was very widespread skepticism as to whether the readings or the evaluation were truthful. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That's what the earlier version meant when it said "do not indicate excellent health": that the doctors were directly contradicting Jackson's report. However, AFAIK the sources mostly report the outside doctors' opinions without actually saying "in a challenge to Jackson's report". And we live and die here by what the sources say. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe one key difference is that "raise concerns" is weasel, possibly a double weasel as to whose concerns and what the concerns may be. "Do not indicate excellent health" conveys the meaning that according to diagnostic or statistical standards for the "excellent" fraction of the population, Trump's readings did not qualify. Just like the check engine light "indicates" trouble with your car, or the pop-out thingy indicates your Butterball turkey is cooked. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support MelanieN's version: "commented that his weight, lifestyle, and LDL cholesterol level may raise concerns about his cardiac health." It's factual, it's to the point, and it's encyclopedic. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Is the "may" necessary there? I think it would be better without the "may". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Either someone's concerns have been raised or they haven't; there is no "may" here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd be OK without the word "may". And maybe it should be "concern", singular, rather than "concerns", plural. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"May" is important for two reasons: It isn't said in Wikivoice that it does or doesn't raise concerns; medical conditions and medicine are uncertain and not absolute - what occurs with one person may not occur with another. The article should not reflect that there will be concerns about his cardiac health, only that there may be depending on certain factors (of which we are not privy because of HIPAA regulations). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. They are not stating he "may" have a heart attack. That would require the qualifier to reflect uncertainty. They are saying it does indicate risk/concern because readings like Trumps are associated with elevated incidences of disease and death. SPECIFICO talk 01:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I would agree with SPECIFICO that your proposal waters down what the source reports. What's wrong with just quoting the New York Times headline with "serious heart concerns"? That sounds ominous enough to convey legitimate doubts from the interviewed cardiologists, and it's rightly attributed to them as relayed by the Gray Lady. We can dispense with "should" entirely.

Several outside cardiologists have commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level raise "serious heart concerns".

Or shorter:

Several outside cardiologists have raised "serious heart concerns" about Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level.

Sources

I like this last one best. @Mandruss, Galobtter, Dervorguilla, SPECIFICO, Winkelvi, Snooganssnoogans, and Compassionate727: Thoughts? — JFG ^talk 04:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The first version is less awful. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump's weight has serious heart concerns? Second version doesn't make sense. First version is better, and I agree that we don't need to water down the source Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer the second version, except "about" isn't the correct preposition there, and I cannot determine what is. I'll say I favor the first one while I wrangle it mentally. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 11:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t care if the NYT headline writers (in their eagerness to get things short enough for a headline) did used the phrase “serious heart concerns”; it is unclear and unmedical. None of the doctors used that phrase, although putting it in quotes implies that they did. What they mean is “serious concerns about his cardiac health” and that’s what we should be saying. --MelanieN (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. "Heart" is not an English adjective, except in headlines and bumperstickers. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Then Several outside cardiologists have commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level raise serious concerns about his cardiac health. Main problem I have with your version is the change from "raise serious concerns" to "may raise concerns"; also, the nytimes article does use "serious heart concerns" in the main text too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does, in the lede paragraph. But again, that is a reporter talking, not a doctor. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe my English grammar is lacking, but to me "serious heart concerns" is fully equivalent to "serious concerns about his heart", just like a "serious heart disease" would be shorthand for a "serious disease of the heart". Of course, per Dervorguilla, Trump may have no heart so why should anyone be concerned? — JFG ^talk 15:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not really important how we interpret it; it's important how we report it. No physician said "serious heart concerns" (and they wouldn't, that's not how doctors talk), so we should not say it (in quotes yet) as if we are reporting what an outside cardiologist said. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine. What do you think of Galobtter's version? We should manage to close this discussion, it's not that hard. — JFG ^talk 15:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I support Galobtter's version. One of the real strengths of talk page discussion is when we manage to work out a consensus wording, which I think we may have done here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. But we should get an opinion from Mandruss, who restored the original wording, precipitating this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nicely worded. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

(Delayed response because there was no ping because your added comment was not on a separate line. I just happened to run across this.) I restored it on procedural grounds, and I'm still sitting out the content discussion. IOW I'm cool with anything you decide. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not again - Leave it alone already. User:MelanieN wording 'prior consensus' is OBE, since User:Starship.paint edit of 10:06 11 March (saying LDL 143) was in place for a couple months it became the 'long-standing' defacto consensus. I do not love it but there it is. Frankly, if it is up for discussion I would suggest just delete the line as I see the article already has three other spots indicating routine issues or saying 'not excellent'. I see no reason that position needs more repetition or that the NYT article is WP:DUE specific mention. Rather doubt the position is even accurately a medical summation as it does not seem this is stating a different overall summary such as "good health". Instead it seems either trying to continue the prior unfounded speculations of health issues in NYT and elsewhere, or just a sniping of the specific word choice by the doctor responding to such stories. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Closure proposal

Looks like we are close to consensus. From the discussion above, there seems to be enough support for the wording suggested by Galobtter:

Several outside cardiologists have commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level raise serious concerns about his cardiac health.

It's a good summary of the cited source, but I think it's a bit lopsided grammatically. I would suggest this instead:

Several outside cardiologists have raised serious concerns for about Trump's cardiac health due to his weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level.

@Compassionate727, Dervorguilla, Galobtter, Mandruss, Markbassett, MelanieN, Snooganssnoogans, SPECIFICO, Starship.paint, and Winkelvi: Can we all get on board with this? — JFG ^talk 09:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it'd be about Trump's cardiac health not for trump's cardiac health to have better grammar/clarity. Between that and one above I suggested I don't have much of a preference. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't like "outside" - how about "independent"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good, but begs the question "independent from whom?", just like "outside" begs "outside from where?" To simplify, we could remove the qualifier, just say "several cardiologists". — JFG ^talk 10:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

A fair and valid point. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Striking "outside" from proposal. — JFG ^talk 11:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Also changing "for" to "about" per Galobtter's remark. — JFG ^talk 11:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support version two proposed by JFG. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support version 2, and appreciate the collaboration displayed above. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• My take on the article is that the cardiologists are criticizing Jackson’s conclusions, saying that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL level ought to have raised serious concerns and not resulted in an assessment of "excellent cardiac health." I think we need to keep "outside" since they did not examine Trump themselves.

Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level ought to have raised serious concerns about his cardiac health.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Clarification? What article text are you proposing to replace? There are two sentences about doc's commenting on his cardio. BTW I think we should get rid of the chat about his other organs and systems. We don't have that kind of meaningless "dog bites man" detail in articles about other real estate developers or media personalities. If it attains importance due to his public office, then this detail belongs in the Presidency article. As I've said repeatedly to deaf ears, I think the whole health section is unnecessary as long as he's up and about, performing his daily routine. Doesn't seem noteworthy. Anyway, what article text would be replaced by one of these proposed alternatives. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• What is noteworthy about the 2018 exam is Dr. Jackson's unprecedented and unconvincing performance for the media. But this, if it is to be addressed, should be discussed explicitly rather than by a SYTNH juxtaposition that suggests Jackson, apparently like Bornstein, was indifferent to the presenting the truth or was under some irresistible pressure to dissemble. There are ample RS that discuss this issue. Liver and cholesterol details are UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence about the liver and cholesterol details should be removed. We don't need all the details, especially they seem to have been selectively released; Dr. Altman, the source for the next sentence, points out that Dr. Bornstein omitted to mention tests of kidney functions (all that diet coke taking its toll?) while mentioning liver, thyroid, prostate; WH lab results also do not show the GFR which would indicate whether there is kidney disease or risk of kidney disease. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering about the two sentences (Several prominent physicians who have not examined Trump have commented that his weight, lifestyle, and test results do not indicate excellent health. Several outside cardiologists have commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level should raise "serious heart concerns".) but assumed that the first one is completely off the table by now and nobody wanted to delete it before this discussion has ended. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I started to remove the second sentence[5] (that was before this discussion was opened), but self-reverted per 1RR,[6] assuming that someone else would see that and spend their 1R. No one did. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I would replace "physicians who did not examine" with "outside cardiologists" but other than that I also think this version would be better.

Several outside cardiologists commented that his weight, lifestyle, and test results do not indicate excellent health.

It's not just about cardiac health, but about overall health (stroke, kidney failure, etc.). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I want to keep either "outside" or "independent"; they are the shortened version of the original "who have not personally examined Trump" and that's an important qualifier. I did prefer the earlier version - where a, b, and c raised serious concerns - rather than the doctors raising the serious concerns. And I will accept "ought to have raised" so I will endorse SpaceTime's suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: SpaceTime has now made two proposals, and I am OK with either of them. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

PLEA- If anyone thinks they know what proposal is on the table, could you please enter it below in a big green box? One or two sentences on the prominent physicians' comments? Kidneys? Liver? Heart health? This is an example of the oft-repeated dysfunction we run into with these superficially structured but in fact very muddled and unclear polls that may lock in the parts of an elephant for 100 blind editors who are feeling tail, trunk, and cholesterol. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• 1st Q: Are these serious concerns about his heart the result of exams and EKGs performed on the patient by all these outside doctors? 2nd Q: Who cares what outside doctors think? 3rd Q: Is the importance of including material about this so-called heart condition diagnosed by outside doctors a subliminal message to Congress to "wait for it..." - no need to worry about impeachment? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking on the bright side, we're no longer discussing hypothetical meetings, or bonespurs, hair ... Here' the entire paragraph with my two proposals; maybe other editors will follow suit.

Option A:

In December 2015, Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a superlative-laden letter of health praising Trump for "extraordinary physical strength and stamina".[71] Bornstein later said that Trump himself had dictated the contents.[72]A followup medical report showed Trump's blood pressure, liver and thyroid functions to be in normal ranges.[73] Trump is overweight and takes statins to lower his cholesterol level.[74] In January 2018, Trump was examined by White House physician Ronny Jackson, who stated that he was in excellent health, although his weight and cholesterol level were higher than recommended,[67] and that the cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues.[75] Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level ought to have raised serious concerns about his cardiac health.[76] Trump requested to undergo a cognition test, and passed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment with a score of 30/30.[77]

Option B:

In December 2015, Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a superlative-laden letter of health praising Trump for "extraordinary physical strength and stamina".[71] Bornstein later said that Trump himself had dictated the contents.[72]A followup medical report showed Trump's blood pressure, liver and thyroid functions to be in normal ranges.[73] Trump is overweight and takes statins to lower his cholesterol level.[74] In January 2018, Trump was examined by White House physician Ronny Jackson, who stated that he was in excellent health, although his weight and cholesterol level were higher than recommended,[67] and that the cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues.[75] Several outside cardiologists commented that his weight, lifestyle, and test results do not indicate excellent health.[76] Trump requested to undergo a cognition test, and passed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment with a score of 30/30.[77]

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Prefer A but support B as alternative Admirably concise and complete text in both versions. Both reflects all of the discussion on this page. Thanks 432x. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Gee, and I thought we were close to consensus this morning... Alright, one more round. Regarding proposals A and B above, I strongly disagree with removing the sentence: A followup medical report showed Trump's blood pressure, liver and thyroid functions to be in normal ranges. This followup report was the only real data about Trump's health during the campaign; if we want to shorten this part, we better remove the sensationalist content-free letter that gushed about Trump becoming the "healthiest person ever elected to the presidency". Then, regarding the sentence that has been under discussion in this thread, i.e. the assessment by outside cardiologists, I still prefer the stronger wording "serious concerns" rather than the watered-down "not excellent health" proposed here, so that's version A, minus the "ought to have raised" which is again some unnecessary watering-down of the cardiologists' assessment. Note that my first version way up top of the thread said the data should raise "serious heart concerns", which is close to the ought to have raised serious concerns about his cardiac health now being floated. Space4Time3Continuum2x Is it more important to say that the interviewed cardiologists disagreed with the White House doctor, or that they estimated that published weight and cholesterol data should raise serious concerns? I think the latter is more significant, notwithstanding all the trash that was later thrown at Jackson for unrelated reasons (his nomination to VA). — JFG ^talk 21:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Prefer A but will accept B. I am OK with leaving out the BP, liver, and thyroid details. In either case we should delete the redundant sentence Trump is overweight and takes statins to lower his cholesterol level.[74] The same information is in the following sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Overweight is a repeat but statins is not; we should keep that one. Just say He takes statins to lower his cholesterol level. — JFG ^talk 22:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Then you would still have cholesterol in two adjacent sentences. Remove the first sentence; the second sentence deals with both weight and cholesterol. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've done that, and just tacked "and takes statin" at the end of the previous sentence. The link allows readers to understand what a statin is for. — JFG ^talk 21:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Support A. No point in saying "test results", it's not helpful, whereas "LDL cholesterol level" is specific. starship.paint ~ KO 07:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Retract my proposal Atsme📞📧 01:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Option D C During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's personal physician Harold Bornstein released a letter that exaggerated Trump’s health, physical strength, and stamina as extraordinary. Bornstein later claimed that Trump had dictated the letter, and that his second medical report more closely represented the results of the exam, which showed Trump's blood pressure, liver, and thyroid function to be within normal ranges. Well into his first year as president, Trump admitted privately that he needed to lose 10 to 15 lbs of weight and agreed to alter his diet. Under the direction of White House physician, Ronny Jackson, nutritionists consulted White House chefs, and a new regimen was implemented to reduce Trump’s caloric intake. A new aerobic exercise plan was also scheduled for Trump, who directed the renovation of the gym adjacent to the Lincoln bedroom in the White House. By the end of May 2018, there were some noticeable changes in Trump’s diet but no indication that an exercise plan had been implemented. CNN NPOV, dispassionate tone - summary. Atsme📞📧 00:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Psssst....JFG, is it ok for me to propose Option D C or am I overlooking something again? (besides not knowing the alphabet) Atsme📞📧 00:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC) You are entitled to suggest whatever you want, and I am not the sole arbiter of what should go into the article, so there is no need to appeal to me personally. Now, your proposal "C" is completely different from everything we have discussed so far, so I do not endorse it, and I don't expect it will gather much support. We are down to settling finer points of grammar about opinions by some cardiologists, and we should stick to that. At least in this thread. — JFG talk 01:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Implemented option A plus amendment about "statin" discussed with MelanieN. Thanks everybody for the constructive discussion. — JFG ^talk 21:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• User:JFG Meh. A tiny bit untrue at the line 'Several outside cardiologists' and '"serious concerns"' -- I'd drop the quotes about "serious concerns" since it is not a literal quote, and suggest better is just WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE "Outside doctors — who have not directly examined Mr. Trump — questioned that conclusion, saying that the combination of Mr. Trump’s weight and the cardiac test results raised more concerns than Dr. Jackson’s comments would reflect.", possibly prefaced by attribution "According to the NY Times" since the phrasing is the journalists. The article did not characterize the four named doctors explicitly as cardiologists, though I think only Dr. Gupta as medical correspondent for CNN is not, or sayhow manyoutside opinions they selected among. Still see no reason to be spending much time over good to excellent health with ordinary and minor flaws, giving a minor NYT article of scrounged-up comments prominence, or skipping the context and greater weight in months of false health stories before the report by Dr. Jackson. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I will remove the quotes (which are not meant to be "scary" but can give this impression). The source does interview several cardiologists, and they are talking about Trump's cardiovascular risk, so that's due (they contradict the CNN guy about a calcium test but that doesn't matter). For the rest, it's true that a lot of context is omitted, especially why Trump had to respond to rumors about his mental health. I guess you could yet propose another wording in a new thread. In the meantime we have enough consensus for this one. — JFG ^talk 06:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:JFG - the CNN guy I think is a ioneurologist -- the other three I think are Cardiologists aat least in background, though 'director' may indicate having moved on to management work. Not se if there are "several" but I suppose they might have not named a couple of people not being quoted. Still feels a bit of jobbing for a story the NYT cobbled up though. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

p.s. Perhaps just extend consensus #21 to omit opinions of academics and doctors who have not examined him. Cheers again Markbassett (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I just read Hillary Clinton#Second half of tenure remembering how ill she fell (literally, on several occasions on camera) before and during the presidential campaign, primarily because I wanted to see how her health concerns had been treated in her BLP - you know, consistency among like topics. The only mention about her health is in the last paragraph of that section. We have more speculation and opinions about Trump's health based on speculation by journalists and doctors who have never examined him. It's comical. It should not require any mention beyond the fact that his 2 doctors said he was in good to excellent health but needs to watch his weight and cholesterol. Unlike Clinton, he never fainted, or fell down the stairs, or had to be carried into his limo - so what's why the inconsistency in how similar information is handled other than the fact they are political opposites? ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. Yet another Trump fan still wanting to tell us how bad Hillary apparently still is. I have a secret for you. Trump won. You can forget about Hillary now. In summary, it's irrelevant. See WP:OtherStuffExists. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess that's because, for better or for worse, WP articles on current politics tend to follow the bulk of news covfefe. — JFG ^talk 07:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Atsme - yes, WEIGHT tends to give space to fads, but for Hillary there were not just false rumors but actual health possible in a couple of falls, coughing issues, and the campaign collapse. And then there were imagined issues with her being helped up stairs, story about an injector pen on hand, and propped up on pillows because supposedly could not support herself. I think at that article the equivalent of consensus #21 was chosen -- and medical stories from anyone not examining her were viewed as BLPGOSSIP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Which in essence, sets a precedent - one that, in this case, was dismissed for unconvincing reasons. Our PAGs set a precedent, and if we abide by our PAGs for one article, those same PAGs should apply to all articles; i.e., what's good for goose is good for the gander. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wealth – Fred Trump's estate

Challenging this removal of long-standing version. After JFG removed the second source, only the NY Times obituary remained. I have recently learned that news outlets prepare obituaries of the "rich and famous" years in advance with the assistance of the prospective eulogizees who – of course – want the obit to contain the facts and nothing but the facts (and pigs flying in formation at the funeral). The obit says that Fred Trump's "estate has been estimated by the family at $250 million to $300 million" but it doesn't say who made that estimate or when; the removed article (the only source for the inheritance part) mentions the unveiling of Fred Sr.’s will, which Donald had helped draft. It divided the bulk of the inheritance, at least $20 million, among his children and their descendants, “other than my son Fred C. Trump Jr.” "Estate" and "inheritance" are two very different concepts; for one thing, very little is known about how much of the Trump Organization property was owned by Fred, how much by Donald, how much by uncle John, and how much by other family members (you can give gifts to your children, for example) or how much personal wealth - apart from the business - Fred had. Also, NY has spousal right of election, i.e., Fred's wife would have inherited at least 30%. Mentioning any dollar amount is pure guesswork - we should remove it. We should add that the deceased son Fred Trump Jr. and his descendants were disinherited and that his children sued Trump and his siblings for their share of the inheritance, claiming that they had exerted undue influence upon their grandfather, who had dementia, to exclude them from his will. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along and discuss article contents? — JFG talk 17:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So you decided to edit war/revert instead of discuss here first or talk to JFG about his good faith edits first? That action is the kind of thing that pisses editors off, creates hard feelings, creates dissention, creates disruption. WP:BRD is good, but with DS, just reverting back and starting discussion later ends up creating days, weeks, months of discussion that pretty much hamstrings editors following policy. Ugh. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Huh? Wrong again, Winkelvi. That "kind of thing" is exactly what bullet 1 of the editing restrictions is referring to with "edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." It's called ROUTINE PROCESS. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC) I'm entitled to my opinion on "routine process" and am free to express my feelings about what's becoming a real problem rather than a solution. Further, nothing is written in stone here policy-wise. Things can, do, and should change as the environment changes and as the need arises. Surely, even you - who spends a lot of energy opposing so much of what I say and do in Wikipedia - can see that BRD is increasingly being abused under the current routine process being enforced via DS at the politically-based articles. Fact: talking/discussing first at articles such as this one is always better than reverting first. One encourages collaboration, the other creates animosity. Aren't you tired of this seemingly endless hostile editing environment? I know I am. Something needs to change. Soon. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC) No, I do not see that. What I see is some editors who really hate the process because it stands between them and what they, in their vastly superior wisdom, "know" is right for Wikipedia content. Which is precisely why we need the process. Yes, you can expect strong pushback from me anytime I see you jump in an editor's shit for following the rules. If you want to file an editor behavior complaint, AE is that way. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC) You've been pushing back at me for much more than that and for quite awhile. A couple of years, I think? I seem to remember an incident where you even logged out to do it as an IP and then attempted to justify the behavior when you were caught. So, considering all this, I think it's a fair assessment that your "pushback" where I'm concerned goes beyond what you claim it's about. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Typical. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC) "BRD is increasingly being abused under the current routine process being enforced via DS"??? BRD does not apply, in the normal sense, on DS articles. Get used to it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Don't know how you came to that conclusion. 'B' = edit made; 'R' = revert as edit is challenged; 'D' = bring up the challenge on the talk page. DS = "Consensus required. All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged". (i.e., the 'D' in BRD). And that creates the hamstring: there are editors who revert to their preferred version (usually on the basis of their personal bias and political beliefs), may or may not start a discussion to reach consensus, when they do they keep the discussion going long enough to wear out the one making the original edit that was reverted or go back and forth endlessly with no consensus being reached. Final result: status-quo remains in place - then lather, rinse, repeat. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: You make a good point; it had escaped me that the obituary did not specifically mention the beneficiaries of the inheritance, although it did name all surviving heirs. I saw the contradiction in estate values and decided to keep the obit source for two reasons:

1. It was written in 1999, contemporary to Fred Trump's death, and is therefore immune from Donald Trump's future endeavours and commentary stemming from his candidacy, whereas the other source is from early 2016 in the heat of the primary campaign.
2. Other sources cited in the wealth section indicate that in 1993 Donald Trump borrowed $30 million from his siblings' trust, guaranteed by $35 million from his future inheritance. Considering that Fred's fortune was ultimately shared a few years later among 4 surviving children and a number of grandchildren (and possibly his wife Mary, who died in 2000), it would be contradictory to have the total worth just "more than $20 million". A rough calculation of $35 million times 4 children gives a minimum of $140 million, which is more in line with the obituary's estimate of $250–300 million. (I do understand this reasoning may be construed as OR, but it is OK to cross-examine contradictory sources.)

For both sources, we do not know where their estimates of Fred's estate come from, and that is indeed an issue. We are not privy to any financial arrangements that Fred may have set up before his death, or how the family trusts were structured. Hopefully we can find another source more focused on this aspect, which could replace them both. In the interim, I would agree with your suggestion to simply dispense with a value. — JFG ^talk 18:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I found a couple of sources (they were already being used in the article, for Forbes and the Grand Hyatt, respectively) that answered some questions, but the picture is still murky. I added a paragraph about the trust funds Fred had set up above the business/Forbes stuff and moved the sentence about Fred's will into the new paragraph. $20 million seems to be correct, per Kessler/WaPo and Queens Surrogate Court records; looks like the big rest of the fortune was placed in trusts before then. I had to keep the wording somewhat vague, but I don't think I misunderstood or misinterpreted the sources or added POV. I didn't try to address Fred's loans to Trump, buying of casino chips, Fred Jr.'s children's contesting the will, etc. O'Brien's article is an excerpt of Chapter 6, TrumpBroke, of O'Brien's book Trump Nation; it has a lot more detail about the Trump's history with Forbes, so I'll be rereading in light of recent revelations (Greenberg etc.). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This is very constructive research, and these are the kinds of sources we need to avoid editorial OR decisions as to weight of primary and contemporaneous secondary references and other less reliable less carefully researched narratives. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Good job, thanks. I tweaked the wording a bit,[7] especially to avoid repeats. — JFG ^talk 22:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You did more than tweak the wording, you changed it so that it no longer accurately reflects the sources. We need to stick to the sources; please self-revert. Important distinction: The sources say that the Fred's children anticipated each one’s share to be around $35 million, not how much was in the trust funds then or later. Trump's siblings were able to loan him a total of $30 million in 1993 against an IOU on his anticipated share of Fred's fortune, but we don't know whether that money came from the trusts, the banks, or their own personal petty cash. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have amended the wording according to sources and placed everything in chronological order for clarity.[8] Also noted that sources put the amount borrowed between $10 and $30 million depending who you ask. Tell me what you think. — JFG ^talk 22:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Mixing up Trump’s inherited wealth with Forbes 400, Deutsche Bank etc. assessments in one big paragraph based on chronological order is muddling the issues. They’re separate issues and for clarity’s sake should be kept separate. As for the loans from the siblings, the sources concur on loans totalling (d’Antonio) $30 million: $10 million in 1993, another $20 million a year later (O’Brien). For the first loan he had to "sign a promissory note pledging future distributions from his trust fund", for the second one his siblings made him agree "that whatever he failed to pay back would be taken out of his share of their father's estate" (I don't know what that distinction means). As an aside - not planning to put that into the article: According to O’Brien he needed $10 million a year just to cover "his living and office expenses" (Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago, other estates, the jet, alimony, child support, etc.); presumably even Deutsche Bank would have balked at forking over money for those purposes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you'd rather have a paragraph on trusts and inheritance, and then a paragraph on the part of his fortune that he built himself. As a reader, I prefer a chronological description of events, so that for example when discussing the 1999 inheritance, we can refer to what was written earlier about family trusts established decades earlier, or the Fortune listing of the 80s. No intent to muddle at all, quite the contrary: because the story of Trump's fortunes is complex and shrouded in secrecy, it's our duty as encyclopedists to try and bring some clarity and order based on a well-written digest of nuggets of information distilled from available sources. I'd love to continue our dialogue towards improvement of this section; no energy to work further today, though. — JFG ^talk 20:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Forbes 400 tapes, again.

JFG has proposed modifying the version of the Forbes sentence that we agreed on in this RFC; technically, looking over the history, it looks like he tried to implement it with a modified version, which I only corrected last night. For now I've switched back to the exact version that reached consensus in the RFC rather than trying for a compromise - since it seems there's still a dispute, please do not modify it, at all, until we have clear consensus here. The differences between the two versions are here, with his preferred version on the left. My objections: 1. The "share of the family assets" aspect is not particularly prominent in the sources (in fact, most do not mention it at all), so I feel it's a digression that distracts from the primary focus of essentially all coverage, which is that Trump lied about his wealth in order to get into the Forbes 400 list; and 2. the proposed change does not explicitly state that the purpose of the deception was to get onto the Forbes 400 list, which is the primary focus of all the coverage. The latter of these things was also the main focus of the RFC (it's in the title!), so taking it out unambiguously violates the RFC's conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The RfC did not mandate a specific wording, so I don't think I "proposed modifying" anything. In fact, seeing no action since RfC was closed, I read all sources and wrote a sentence[9] that I felt reflected the closer's conclusion pretty well, viz:

Former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg stated in 2018 that Trump had deceived him about his actual net worth and his share of the family assets.

Aquillion then changed it[10] to:

In 2018, Jonathan Greenberg, an ex-Forbes reporter, said that Trump had deceived him about his actual wealth in order to be included on the 1982 listing.

with edit comment "Rewording slightly to more closely match the version of the Greenberg sentence that was settled on in the RFC, with some minor additions to make it clear that this refers to the 1982 list." I reverted this[11] with edit comment: "I disagree. Greenberg actually says that Trump deceived him and his colleagues for several years, not just in 1982. Also, the weaseling about his share of the family business is very significant."

Context is already clear that we are in 1982, as the previous sentence says:

He appeared on the initial Forbes 400 list of richest Americans in 1982 with an estimated $200 million fortune equally shared with his father.

And the Greenberg piece specifically explains that Trump apparently inflated his wealth repeatedly during the 1980s, until Forbes finally dropped him in 1989. Also, the 50/50 share with Trump Sr. looked extremely dubious, and that is definitely worth mentioning. Taking into account Aquillion's remarks, I would suggest this change:

Former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg stated in 2018 that Trump had deceived him about his actual net worth and his share of the family assets in order to appear on the list.

What do you think? — JFG ^talk 21:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose - sorry, JFG - but I think it's trivia with -0- lasting encyclopedic value, except maybe to a Forbes ex-staffer who is suddenly looking for attention. That claim didn't get any mileage when it happened, yet all of a sudden it means something? Time wise, we're in the first 500+ days of his presidency, and as more stuff develops, we'll be looking to TTT (trim the trivia), so we might as well start now. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: We are not re-running the RfC, so you can't "oppose". Please. A sentence must be added, let's focus on discussing the exact wording. — JFG ^talk 21:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Door #4 - apologies, I wasn't here for the close and totally overlooked it above. "Former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg stated....". ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• OpposeThis is rather outrageous. OP wrote text that reflected the conclusion of the uninvolved closer of the poll and JFG -- having !voted against inclusion because +/-"Trump hahaha," then wants to go back to the text that deviates from the closing instruction only shortly after the close. No justification for any deviation from the Aquillion text. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what went on. Please review the edit history and stop the personal attacks. — JFG ^talk 22:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You wrote text that ignored the instructions of the closer. OP fixed it and now you want to deviate again. Clue us in - what did I get wrong? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please explain to everybody how I "ignored the instructions of the closer". Closer wrote: clearly a very strong consensus that something about the Forbes tapes be included: I did the work to include it when nobody seemed to care 3 days after the RfC was closed. Closer wrote: However […] the positioning and phrasing of the sentence may lead readers to think that it's alleged Trumps current position on the Forbes list is the result of fabrication […] thought should be given to phrasing when including them in the article. Consequently I paid attention to detail and wrote a carefully-worded sentence that correctly represents the substance of Greenberg's declarations. And it was not because "Trump hahaha"; in fact my phrasing is harder on Trump than Aquillion's version, by adding that he reportedly lied about the 50/50 (or 90/10, or 5/95, who knows?) share of the family fortune, which is a fucking big deal and was duly noted by several participants in the RfC. So, quit lecturing me in every thread based on what you guess I think, quit misrepresenting what I and others are actually writing, and go put in some constructive work into the article itself. Your constant badgering of this talk page and lack of AGF is extremely frustrating to several editors. Thanks. — JFG ^talk 22:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It is very clear from the close: ...thought should be given to phrasing when including them in the article (perhaps citing the year the events were alleged to have occured?) - This was in the article before the RfC, I believe, but at any rate you did not do this in the text you wrote after the close. This was what @Aquillion: corrected and what necessitated this thread. Nobody here should judge content on whether it's "harder on Trump..." so I don't think that's germane and I won't respond to that. As to your comment in the RfC, it is on the record. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence of the RFC is Since it seems like everyone has presented their arguments and there are requests for an RFC... this discussion led to debates over whether we should include this edit, which covers tapes by reporter Jonathan Greenberg that he says shows Trump lying in order to get on the Forbes 400 list, with a link to a specific edit that was the topic of discussion. I appreciate that (even as someone who opposed during the RFC) you probably felt that you were trying for a reasonable interpretation of what the RFC required and that you felt you'd satisfactorily met that standard (maybe even feeling you'd gone beyond it by being more "harsh" to Trump, as you said above); I don't fault you for that. But now that an objection has been raised we must go back to a strict reading of the RFC's outcome, at least for now. Anyway, procedure-yammering aside, since we're discussing it now and I should probably move on to that so we can actually hammer the rest of that consensus out... as I said above, I feel the "share of family assets" bit is a nonstarter - I don't feel one aspect of the exact mechanism of his deception (arguing over the share of wealth) is worth including in a one-sentence summary, since only some of the secondary sources focus on it. If we were writing a larger block of text, sure, we'd mention it, but I don't think the sources support the idea that it belongs in a one-sentence summary. --Aquillion (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I felt it was important to mention the "share of family's fortune" aspect of Trump's deception, because the preceding sentence in our prose states: He appeared on the initial Forbes 400 list of richest Americans in 1982 with an estimated $200 million fortune equally shared with his father. Consequently I would still advocate for some text that would acknowledge this was likely a misrepresentation by Trump. Open to discussion on the exact wording, of course. Taking into account your other remark that we should also state Trump's goal to be on the list, my suggestion is: Former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg stated in 2018 that Trump had deceived him about his actual net worth and his share of the family assets in order to appear on the list. It's still brief, and it's more precise. Can you get behind that? — JFG ^talk 22:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Still not convinced. Honestly I'd be more likely to remove or replace the preceding sentence (it's sourced to a slideshow, of all things? Listacles are not particularly good sources, since they provide no context or depth.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point about the slideshow; I replaced it with a proper article from Forbes which recaps the evolution of Trump's estimated fortune from 1982 to 2015.[12] Crucially it doesn't say that the $200 million of 1982 were shared "equally" with his father, just shared, so I edited accordingly. — JFG ^talk 14:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Still think exclude - trivia lightly covered piece, lacks WEIGHT and simply not a major action by Trump or significant effect to his life that would make it suitable for BLP menion. For the whole section I'd prefer simplify, shorten, and summarize the too many figures makes it TLDR and an unimportant interview 40 years ago is just a level of excess detail. Describe it in 10 words or less,leave more detail inside the cite that will pop-up if someone wants it and move along. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC has decided to include this, doesn't matter that you'd still like it out. You say "describe it in 10 words or less"; why not but do you have a suggestion? Current proposal on the table is 32 words, I'd struggle to shorten it without trimming its meaning. — JFG ^talk 05:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead control

Floating a radical idea.

Not counting the introductory two sentences, 68% of the lead (by word count) is about his 2016 campaign, election, and presidency-to-date. That is by far the most significant part of his life, but 68% still seems a bit much for <5% of his life. I think ~60% would be a good limit, so a few things would need to exit the lead.

But whatever the percentage x%, I think we need a zero-growth policy that would keep it at ~x% for the duration of the term, regardless of how dramatically (or traumatically) that plays out. Thus, for each new thing we decided to add, we would have to remove something of lesser significance to his overall life. If he entered the U.S. into another undeclared war, for example, his imposition of import tariffs would suddenly seem less lead-worthy by comparison, so a swap would make sense.

Forgive my venial sin of quantification, but some kind of discipline like this seems the most (only?) practical way to keep the lead of this biography at a reasonable size and prevent it from being completely overwhelmed by his presidency. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Approaching this from another direction, it seems to me that this bio article contains altogether too much play-by-play from his Presidency and that it would benefit from a ruthless trimming of material that rightly belongs only in his Presidency or other politics-related articles. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The hard part is getting consensus on what should stay and what should go. But I'm willing to work on it. — JFG ^talk 21:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss:I share your concerns about excess detail, but I prefer to let things ebb and flow organically. The lede has been pretty stable in length over the last couple years. No worries. And let's face it: Trump's campaign and presidency may only represent 5% of his time on this Earth, but it's easily 80% of the attention he is getting. His prior life as a real-estate magnate cum playboy is not all that encyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 21:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think a hard number is useful. If he does a lot of extremely noteworthy things as President, then we need to include them in the lead of his biography, even if it's a bit awkward - there's no getting around that. --Aquillion (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - I'd prefer simplify, shorten, and summarize in general. Leave the detail for later, and yes keep the Presidential material mostly in that article as OFFTOPIC for here. Markbassett (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a hard rule is helpful here, but I support this as a general principle. Unless something truly unexpected and important (World War III) happens, Trump's accomplishments as president should largely replace less-important events from the first part of his term in the lead section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

False statements

Interesting to see this section is barely a paragraph. Trump's "false statements" are one of the more visible aspects of his profile. Perhaps we could include a few of his more notable whoppers? Like the time he claimed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton cofounded ISIS, perhaps?[13] --Pete (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Good luck. The history of his articles reveals consistently successful efforts to whittle down such content to practically nothing. Check the article's history and you'll see that NPOV does not apply here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The link provided says he claimed in a speech that Obama founded and Clinton co-founded ISIS not that they both co-founded the entity. Of course he was speaking in terms of being figurative in that actions by Obama led to the founding of ISIS and that Clinton aided that by her actions. There are far better examples of him making false statements and this one is simply and utterly taken out of context.--MONGO 01:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a RS that he was being figurative? Did he clarify his remarks or admit that his statement was false? Cites? --Pete (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump said he was not speaking figuratively: Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

CNN reporter put forth a spin title. (No surprise) It was figurative and not further explained. Markbassett (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh... you guys do realize that you are saying that it's perfectly fine to lie, as long as one then claims that they were "speaking figuratively". Whatever the hell that means. The moon is made of blue cheese. Oh, I was speaking figuratively. 2+2=8. Just figuratively of course. User:Jimbo Wales is two inches tall! Wait, I meant that figuratively. Markbassett owes me a hundred dollars. Only figuratively, but you better pay up buddy!

Wait, wait, wait, no, that's incorrect. Actually, it's not even Trump who claims he was speaking figuratively. As the source above shows, he actually doubles down on the claim when given the opportunity to say that it was just figuratively. He sticks by it. It's actually Trump supporters on Wikipedia who are making this bullshit excuse for him. Which is actually WP:OR.

Yet another example of the sorry state these articles are in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well VM, I agree with your "sorry state" analogy, but not for the reason you mentioned. Speaking about figuratively, I stumbled across this article which may help you understand a perspective that is obviously quite different from your own based on your evaluation of "figuratively", including the difference between a lie and how metaphors are used...figuratively. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

More nonsense intended to confuse, disinform and ... lie. There is "using a metaphor" ("rivers of blood", "shake the rust of American foreign policy") and then there's outright lying. "Obama founded ISIS" - where exactly is the metaphor in that???? Please at the very least learn what a "metaphor" actually is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

, sorry VM - I'm not going anywhere near your bait. Your issue with metaphors is, well...your issue, not mine. Perhaps if you'd be a bit more flexible with your tightly held views of the world according to VM, we'd all get along much better. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

A lie is a lie, no matter what goofy things you come up to call it. That's the "world according to VM". Sorry you don't share it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Skyring -- it's said a lot but there isn't (yet) anything as big or iconic as other Presidents 'you can keep your doctor', 'read my lips no new taxes', or 'it depends on what your definition of is, is'. And too may of them spin around someone putting an interpretation on words and then a particular judgement approach -- seems more a constructed view product for their market and not a statement of an objective fact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe it as "putting an interpretation on words". It's taking words literally, on face value, assuming their most likely, usual meaning, then being told that isn't what he said or isn't what he meant. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. He repeated it many times, without any moderation or qualifiers, just a straight out absolute statement. He was also questioned on it repeatedly, and just doubled down even more emphatically. Did he mean it or believe it? Who knows. With Trump it's all about the immediate points he can score, and whom he can hurt, not about whether it's truthful. He said it, it was a very false statement, and it scored points with a certain class of voters who fall for repeated lies, a technique taught to Trump by Roy Cohn [14]. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No, we should not be calling Trump's criticism a false statement - it comes across more like defense of Obama, and that's not our job. We say what the sources tell us...and the NYTimes stated: Mr. Trump’s statement was an escalation in his recent criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the terror threat, as he had previously accused only Mrs. Clinton of having a “founding” role in the terror group. Let's not lose perspective. Iran is the top state sponsor of terrorism, there's the WaPo article about Obama's $1.7 billion deal, and now there's news about Obama giving Iran secret access to the US financial system. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Trump, not Obama, nor Hillary. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

False statements are often used by him as "criticism". The two are not mutually exclusive. (Don't make too much of the current - NOTNEWS - one-sided GOP coverage of that tightly controlled and limited access the Iranians got to THEIR OWN money.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I never see these same arguments at the parallel BLPs on the opposite side of the political spectrum - read those same arguments when editors attempted to add the health issues at HRC's BLP - they ruled to be UNDUE. It also appears that NOTNEWS for some only applies to allegations against a particular POV, and that is how we know this article has serious POV issues. The argument here has always been that If it is covered in RS, it belongs in the article...unless it favors Trump, and then it is censored. Sorry, but your arguments are not convincing because you're arguing for DNC coverage which is exactly what you described for exclusion of other material regarding one-sided GOP coverage. There is nothing - I repeat, nothing - in our PAGs that says we cannot/should not include coverage by biased media or sources. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Please spare me the same ole weary unconvincing arguments of bias. That is not how WP works. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of whoppers of his that we could add as examples, but the "Obama-Hillary-ISIS" legend is not one of them. It hasn't gotten as much attention as some of the others, and WEIGHT of Reliable Source Coverage is our standard. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Still, it’s a good suggestion: the current paragraph offers NO examples, just a generalization and some factchecker reports. We should cite a few carefully chosen examples. Our criteria should be: (a) widely reported things that are (b) blatantly false, that he has (c) said repeatedly, in defiance of (d) repeated debunking. Here is NBC’s list of his 10 biggest whoppers of 2017. I would suggest we choose a few from that list. I would recommend that we chose from among “Obama bugged Trump Tower,” “biggest inauguration crowd in history”, “I won’t benefit from the tax bill,” and “millions of illegal votes for Hillary”. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Just curious..., wouldn't that be considered OR; i.e., choosing one news source, then choosing what we like out of a list at that news source? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, please actually READ WP:OR. It says not to do our own research, or synthesize separate facts to reach a conclusion that was not in the sources. It does NOT say we mustn't choose what to report here. In fact is absolutely our job, and our basis of operation, to choose among sources and to select what out of those sources to report. I spelled out the criteria I think we should use to make our selection; you can't get any more DUE or NEUTRAL than that. --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually I did read OR, in particular WP:PRIMARY. Why would NBC not be considered a primary source per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Notes? Thank you in advance for explaining...^{Atsme📞📧} 22:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read WP:PRIMARY either. Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. No way does that apply to NBC's thoughtful summary of a year of news stories. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. If you didn't like NBC's list for some reason, try Factcheck.org's. I think you'll find the same things on it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, maybe....but as we’re now learning, some media articles may well be considered primary sources based on this recent indictment. Times they are a changing...literally. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I like the NBC list -- we need to rely more on these summaries that give perspective to the daily news reports. One that's come up again recently is "64 people died in Puerto Rico" with the new government report best estimate00:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC) that the death toll is closer to a hundred times that. I agree the ISIS one, although he may very well believe it, has gained relatively little traction compared to others that refer to more tangible recent issues -- disparagement of Latino and Muslim populations, Dark State conspiracy theories about the Justice Dept., and a few others. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Can't blame that one on Trump. The "64 people" official death toll was according to the government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Also, the new information was not from a "new government report", it was from an academic study. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes you're right. I should have recalled the source of the actual number (estimate). Actually, come to think of it the whole PR response issue belongs in the racism and policy basket, not in the untruth subject matter. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's more like disparagement of the criminal aspects of Latino and Muslim populations and the open border controversy. To say otherwise is POV. For example, MS13 issues, and Islamic terrorism are very real. I remain cautious about taking journalistic opinion at face value - liken it to being something along the lines of practicing sound editorial judgment. Only the facts, please. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, at the risk of straying from the current editing discussion, I need to tell you that what you just wrote is false. Scary insinuations about "the caravan" of violent Central American criminals marching inexorably to invade the USA somewhere East of El Cajon were untrue before, while and after Trump promoted them. Etc. Etc., Fox News notwithstanding. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, please don't talk about "journalistic opinion" unless you are talking about things taking place on the opinion pages of a newspaper or among the talking heads on a TV show. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, perhaps you didn't notice but one of the sources I used above was an opinion page in USNews authored by an academic who writes a column for them. That academic was criticized as not notable. You know I always honor your requests, but I expect them to be valid ones. I would very much appreciate it if you read this discussion again because I'm beginning to feel that you are being called/or attracted to my discussions without knowing the full scope of what I'm actually stating to be my position. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If you were talking about someone writing on the opinion page, you weren't talking about journalism: you were talking about an academic who wrote an opinion column on the editorial page. "Journalistic opinion" as such simply does not exist, unless one thinks that all journalism is opinion. Bad journalism may be opinionated, but then it's bad journalism. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I had to rub my one good eye to make sure I read your response correctly. I thought it was playing tricks on me. 🧐 Yes, Drmies, I was talking about an academic who is a weekly columnist for a news publication - specifically US News - and he is also an occasional columnist for The Washington Times, and a few other news sources. We call that a journalist or columnist, albeit part-time. Merriam's definition of journallist is a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast. We could say he's an associate prof who dabbles in opinion journalism or that he's an opinion journalist with academic credentials, whatever works best. He also has experience as a diplomat with the U.S. Dept. of State so we could add that he's a former diplomat with academic credentials, and his areas of expertise as a journalist include US national security and foreign policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

And he's still one of thousands of "academics" who are not notable experts in any field and he is a gent who's affiliated with a rather uninmpressive far right institution with a fancy name but no reputation for significant thought or any other excellent accomplishment. So, why would an encyclopedia present this gentleman's POV to our readers when we could instead find the most incisive and insightful commentators and the most reliable factual reporting on which to base our article? SPECIFICO talk 03:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

🎼🎶 🎶 🎶 🎶 repetitive harping doesn't sell records, so I'll end it on this note: ♬ I disagree that he's not notable. ♫ 🥁 ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a forum for discussing...well, these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not going to debate the OR argument; however, I will say that the sources I cited above are RS. You can call them wrong all day long if it suits you, but it won't change our PAGs. I grew up near the Texas border - spent lots of time there as an adult - have lived/seen the events you called false which is neither here nor there. Our job on WP is to write what RS say, detach ourselves from any biases we may have in a concerted effort to provide our readers with factual information in a dispassionate tone, make sure it is verifiable, and presented from a NPOV. If we do that, everything else will work out just fine. Atsme📞📧 01:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Well, no again. You've got an opinion piece by a non-notable academic who also hangs his hat at a right-wing faux think tank. And then there's the opinion of Jeff Sessions, OMG, etc. RS for what? Not facts. SPECIFICO talk 01:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC) BTW, this isn't true either. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC) I disagree that he's a "non-notable academic". I have not seen the Fox clip, but will in a bit - in the interim, this article is in-line with what most in the media are reporting. Atsme📞📧 15:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC) PS: Just watched the Fox clip - what part of it do you believe isn't true? Atsme📞📧 15:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Atsme, what color link do you see here? Lamont Colucci? If you believe he's notable, by all means write an article. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 😆 Surely you don't believe that unless someone has an article in WP, they can't possibly be notable as reliable experts about a specific topic? RS states: The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. I'd say this info helps to identify his area of expertise. Someone once told me that there's actually life outside WP, and I believed them because they live for a living. Atsme📞📧 16:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC) @Atsme: Did you actually see lots of members of ISIS pouring into America when you "grew up near the Texas border" then? Forgive me, but this sounds an awful like "I can see Russia from my house." -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC) I have two associates who own several sections of land (and lease parts of it for hunting) along our southern-most border, and they have witnessed it, their hunters have witnessed it, and have turned over photographs to border security. You might want to brush-up on your homework, and see page 11, Jeh Johnson's statement in this report. The ISIS situation is not new. I also have extended family from Iraq who served as translators, so as I said in the beginning, I'm not going to debate or contribute to the OR argument but remain quite confident regarding my perception of what is actually happening. Our job as editors is confined to citing RS, which I've done, and to comply with NOR, which I've done - end of discussion on my end. Atsme📞📧 14:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Oh jebus freakin crust but this is dumb. No, there's no fucking ISIS camp on the US-Mexico border [15] (and this is why JudicialWatch is a garbage source)and I'm sorry but anybody who believes in that nonsense is a total fucking idiot. Senators or reps or secretaries included. And it's precisely by treating people who say dumb ass shit like that seriously and pretending like this stuff can be part of regular discourse among intelligent people that we get into a situation like this, where obvious bullshit is being presented on part with established facts, where you can't call an obvious lie a lie (we have to call it "speaking figuratively" (sic)), and where absurd conspiracy theories are treated as possibilities, and where people walk into pizza parlors with the intent to shoot them up cuz they heard something somewhere. Enough. COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED and that applies to the very basic ability of being able to differentiate between plausible phenomena and obviously witless conspiracy theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Ha!! Jebus freakin crust - gotta remember that one. Well, VM...most here are aware of your POV, and understand why opposing views may stir your emotions. The reality is rather simple - it doesn't matter how upset you become when other editors don't agree with your perception of the world and world events. It's better to simply not have any expectations, one way or the other, it spares one disappointment and helps to maintain one's neutrality. Yes, WP:CIR...and if you truly believe the rhetoric in your comment above, why don't you apply it to the many Trump-related articles that are based primarily on speculation, conspiracy theories and wishful thinking, starting with Trump-Russia dossier. Happy editing!! Atsme📞📧 16:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Like Atsme, I have also lived on the southern border and personally know individuals who have witnessed same. Including Border Patrol agents I've talked to and give the same kind of testimony. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Oh BS. And a good thing that Wikipedia users' ridiculous personal "testimonies" are not considered as reliable sources and have no bearing on what content we include or not include. This is WP:NOTAFORUM violation and belongs in some conspiracy subreddit, not on a talk page of an encyclopedia article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Actually, personal knowledge is valuable as it relates to WP:CIR and sound editorial judgment, both of which are required when editing highly controversial articles. No one is suggesting personal views are RS so you can stop that spin. Oh, and VM, I've noticed that we have quite a few competent editors, so competency is not exclusive to you alone...but your consistent criticism and obliquely presented PAs are beginning to wear thin. Please try a little harder to be collegial and express your views without all the emotion. Thanks. Atsme📞📧 16:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Yeah... no. This isn't "personal knowledge". This is "personal self delusions" or something. Anyone can go and make wild claims and then back them up with "but I swear, I saw it with my own two eyes!". Here, lemme go to the Earth article and put in that it's flat because, you know, I saw it from the plane and it didn't look round to me! Or let me go to the UFO article and write how they real cuz they abducted me last night, I swear, it's my own "personal knowledge"! Also, I just checked, using match sticks, and no matter how many times I counted, 2+2 is in fact 8! "My own personal knowledge"! I guess you're right, it's related to CIR. Also, not clear where you're seeing "emotion" here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC) I hate to disagree with you on this one, Marek, but I was down in Laredo several years back attending my nephew's Boy Scout induction ceremony there, and while we were at the Dairy Queen, we saw 4 guys in ISIS t-shirts hitchhiking not more than 200 feet from where we were seated. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Four men wearing ISIS T-shirts? Blatantly and casually wearing them in public??? And actually expecting to be picked up as hitchhikers???? Impossible to take this story seriously. Either you misinterpreted what you saw, or it was some kind of prank. Similarly, what your friends with border property have seen, and certainly do see all the time, was people sneaking across the border. What led them to conclude that the people they saw were ISIS members could be anything, but most likely their own expectation. There have been a few cases of middle eastern terrorists of various stripes being smuggled across the border.[16] But the notion that they are just blatantly walking across in large numbers has been thoroughly debunked.[17] --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC) May I theorize that SPECIFICO is pulling your leg? — JFG talk 20:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC) ...? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

What I think would greatly improve the article would be not to perfect our list of this-and-that, i.e. which lies and distortions Trump has broadcast, so much as to look at how and why he uses them. What are the subjects, on what occasions does he say these things, what's the context, what's the effect, what does it benefit him, is it crazy or is it strategic? These are the meaningful issues, and there is lots of RS discussion of these questions. We should try to assemble some good content from them. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Getting back to the idea of choosing a few examples to cite in the Falsehoods section

I don't want to hat the above discussions - they are ongoing and at least somewhat related to the topic - but I'd also like to get back to the suggestion of including a few examples. Repeating my comment from above: We should cite a few carefully chosen examples. Our criteria should be: (a) widely reported things that are (b) blatantly false, that he has (c) said repeatedly, in defiance of (d) repeated debunking. Here is NBC’s list of his 10 biggest whoppers of 2017. I would suggest we choose a few from that list. I would recommend that we chose from among “Obama bugged Trump Tower,” “biggest inauguration crowd in history”, “I won’t benefit from the tax bill,” and “millions of illegal votes for Hillary”. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as [the World Trade Center] was coming down [18] is one of his ugliest lies (from the campaign trail). I suspect something about the "birther" controversy should be included, as well as his own "truthful hyperbole" line (currently in "Campaign rhetoric"). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a tempting idea, but I'm afraid it would turn into a quotefest of trash (shit Trump said, followed by shit people said about him). Encyclopedic writing should remain above that. — JFG ^talk 20:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I can't see why we should spend time picking which to mention and/or quote and endless arguing about whether it was a "whopper" or just a sensationalism designed to agitate his political foes. All I can say is it works cause the media pounces on every word he utters or tweets looking for some way to feel annoyed. Watched an interview he did a day or week maybe after he was elected and he stated he had to win states no Republican has ever won before....or something along those lines. Of course I think every state has been won by a republican presidential nominee at one point or another but was this a whopper or was it just a figurative Trumpism?--MONGO 00:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I think MelanieN's criteria are a good suggestion. As a nit though, why is the NBC list referred to as " his 10 biggest whoppers of 2017" when it has nine entries?S Philbrick(Talk) 00:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

If I were to pick, I'd probably start with item 2 HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE BECAUSE OF FRAUD. It's possible he believes it, which would make it technically not a lie, but he should know better, so it qualifies.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

RS Polling tells us that a large segment of the US electorate believes that various of Trump's falsehoods are true. This has nothing to do with the mainstream media clucking and whining over them. RS do however give broad analysis of the phenomenon including collateral factors such as his staff and associates fear of Trump reprisals if they do not flatter and parrot him, the role of Fox News and the alt-right media in propagating false narratives, and other factors. These larger issues are more significant than the particular misstatements and sycophancy. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the substance of your point. Having said that, if your suggestion is that this article should have a discussion of this phenomenon I'm not quite so quick to agree. The fact that some people make statements which are judged by some to be falsehoods but believes by others for various reasons sounds like a subject worth discussing but it seems like it should be its own article not something in this particular biography. I don't think the phenomena of which you speak is unique to Trump.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE chitchat from Marketwatch.com

This edit [19] reinstates content that amounts to idle chatter of the sort routinely published on financial markets daily information websites. Our text says "experts" wheras the sources named in the article appear to be non-notable, self-interested parties such as real estate brokers unqualified to make such predictions. The following sentence makes a broad statement about condominiums, whereas the cited source is discussing possible demand for Trump-affiliated properties due to conflict of interest favor-seeking. This speculative content is UNDUE, poorly sourced, dubious, and inessential to POTUS biography. It should once again be removed. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The Market Watch article was originally published in Mansion Global, a professional real estate publication; I will update the citation accordingly. This article reports on interviews with several experts of the NYC real estate market, and is therefore a credible source. The only problem is that it's speculative; as I said in my edit summary, we should look for a more recent source that would show hard data about the purported rebound in the market value of Trump Organization-owned property. The second article cited from USA Today is a bit more recent (April 2017); again it interviews real estate agents who give their on-the-ground evaluation of the market. If all of this is considered undue, then we should also remove all the prior reporting on reduction in value of commercial properties due to diminished bookings and foot traffic allegedly following boycotts. I believe it is more informative for our readers to keep it all in. — JFG ^talk 22:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Mansion Global is most definitely not RS for economic or market forecasts. It's a sales organ for retail brokers and intra-industry promotion. There is no expertise, critical evaluation or other editorial process at that publication that would qualify its predictions as RS. I already explained why those brokers are not "experts" on economic trends or privce predictions. They are salespeople. There is no rational basis to assert any equivalency between what you recently re-added and the other content whcih relates to factual reporting. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The source does not pretend to engage in "economic or market forecasts"; it specifically examines the dynamics of NYC real estate demand, and what is happening to Trump-branded properties, based on their daily experience on the ground. That's RS enough. — JFG ^talk 05:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Not only is that particular comment "undue chitchat", I think the whole paragraph may be "undue chitchat". No one has any numbers to prove that his brand has gained or lost value, it's all speculation. What would people think about removing the whole paragraph? Or at least moving it to The Trump Organization instead of here in his biography? --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, 2 in a row. I removed that whole bit when I first saw it, and if anything it's getting less relevant and more stale with age. To the extent any of that is relevant to this article, we now have actual empirical data that relate to the same phenomena. One interesting development has been the ongoing battles of tenants and condo owners in Trump-branded projects to remove the Trump name from their properties. There is growing concern that it impairs the resale value of the apartments, even in Trump Tower, where some listings have languished. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. For now, I've changed the wording to reflect the sources more accurately. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

A web search on "Trump condo sales" gives lots of top-tier RS discussion of the glut of Trump condos, the taint of his unpopularity on resale values, and the fall in sale price per square foot. The only Trump-branded condos that appear not to have suffered these declines are in a building in Las Vegas, NV, USA. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That's three of us saying, remove the paragraph that tries to track what has happened to the value of the Trump "brand" due to his campaign for and election to the presidency. Does anyone object to removing it? Let's wait a little longer for people to chime in. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Make that 4, MelanieN. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Aye. Remove it, please. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 15:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the current content needs to be removed, for sure, but there may be well-sourced relevant content if indeed there's a documented pattern of distress in the market for Trump condos and it is reliably attributed to the branding. That will need some further research. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have removed the paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

WTH, MelanieN - you removed the wrong section!!! ............ didn't want you to feel left out. Seriously, wouldn't it be wonderful if it could always be this easy? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Amazing what calm, civil discussion can accomplish. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Now you know why we missed you during your seemingly endless vacation - off having fun in the sun while the only tans we got came from the light of our LCD monitors. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Late comment, just to say I agree with removal by MelanieN. Wealth section is long enough. — JFG ^talk 20:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Unconstructive chatter — JFG talk 21:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Surely you're aware you could have self-reverted at any time. SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 1) You removed content and I reverted it; that's called a "challenged edit" and the onus was on you to obtain consensus, not on me to self-revert. 2) You opened the discussion to seek input from other editors than you and me. 3) The discussion ended up erasing the whole part dabbling in the purported impact of Trump's election on his fortunes, whether positive or negative; my initial edit was restoring a positive impact after you had deleted it in order to keep only the negative impact. 4) NPOV = either mention positive and negative impact, or none; this is why I agree to the full removal, while I disagreed with your partial removal. — JFG talk 13:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC) We all know the sequence of events -- no need for the handy recap. The point is it that this was obviously bad content. So by reinstating it under DS restrictions, it you forced a needless thread that accomplished nothing but a waste of editor time and attention while other more important issues are pending and unaddressed. SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Please do not lecture me about what you consider "bad content" and "needless threads". — JFG talk 14:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC) SPECIFICO, it is incorrect to say that this discussion accomplished nothing. It accomplished the removal of the whole paragraph. That was not even on the table to start with, but came up during discussion and was then agreed to. In other words this was a productive discussion with a consensus result, and the outcome was different from what would have happened if JFG had self-reverted. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC) I'm not following that, Melanie. I had already removed this obviously UNDUE content the first time it was put in the article. How are we better off repeatedly inserting stuff that had no consensus and then repeatedly dredging up arguments and going through the process of removing it again? And then for the re-inserting editor not to put us out of our misery once he changed his mind makes no sense at all. I would hope that, once JFG realized that the reinsertion was a mistake, the whole thing could have been self-reverted to end the pointless relitigation. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC) The diff you cite at the beginning of this discussion only shows him restoring a single phrase to the paragraph. So presumably that is what you meant this discussion to be about. And that is what you and JFG then began to debate - that one phrase, that one source. And just now when you suggested JFG self-revert, that one phrase was presumably what you were talking about. If you intended for this discussion to be about removing the entire paragraph, you didn't make that clear - and the idea didn't explicitly come up until I suggested it the next day. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Yes, Melanie, you did good with that one, but I doubt JFG's insistence in favor of the keeping bad sentence was intended to work against keeping the whole bad paragraph. 👩‍🔧 SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"Passing" the Montreal Cognitive Assessment

The very last sentence in [Health section] needs to be edited.

I administer the mental health assessment in question (as a geriatric social worker), and it's not an assessment that you can "pass" or "fail." It's used in patients with cognitive concerns to assess their level of functioning, either at one moment in time or relative the points in to past. A score of at least 26 out of 30 is considered "normal," and this is the wording that should be used, if results must be described in such terms. However, the scores on this assessment are usually used in conjunction with other observations to assess a patient's overall cognitive state. A score of 26 or above isn't just a clean bill of cognitive health.

For example, a patient might make an appointment to see a neurologist because of concerns over her failing memory. The neurologist would administer this assessment at her first visit. The results would give a picture of the patient's current cognitive functioning. This score would be recorded as a baseline. At future visits--maybe once a year or every 18-24 months--the neurologist might RE-administer the assessment to track the patient's decline in cognitive functioning. Over time, a patient with a degenerative disorder would see their score fall gradually from the baseline.

Neurologists will combine the results of this assessment with other information to take various actions and make various recommendations (e.g., that the patient stop driving, or that the family secure in-home help to ensure the patient's safety, or that the patient seek supportive housing or a nursing home placement).

Anyway, in short, there's no score on this assessment that's considered passing or failing. Even when using it as a shorthand for having gotten a score on the assessment that's 26 or above, using the word "pass" in this context is misleading and inaccurate, intentional or not. I'd recommend something like:

Trump was administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and received a score of 30/30, indicating a normal level of cognitive function.

Or

Trump was administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the results of which indicated a normal level of cognitive function.

"Pass" and "fail" are not only misleading terms in this context, but they're also heavily biased--lending subtle but undeniable credence to the politically skewed narrative of his excellent health. Not very Wikipedia-y.

ps: I also recommended changing the "Trump requested..." part of the sentence, because there's no way of knowing whether that's actually true, and it doesn't matter anyway--why inject the unnecessary bias in there? The only thing we "know" is that he was given the assessment during his exam, so that's all we should write. Just a personal gripe there though.

Heykerriann (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer the former restatement, namely: "Trump was administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and received a score of 30/30, indicating a normal level of cognitive function." Properly cited and sourced, this sentence would bridge the gap between the medical facts and layman readability. (I agree with the postscript, but that's for another time, perhaps?) — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 13:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with "normal level of cognitive function" instead of "passed". I think we could keep "30 out of 30". I think we should keep the "Trump requested" part of the report; that's important because to leave it out might imply that Jackson gave it to him because of some doubts about his cognitive function. What is now in the article is "Trump requested to undergo a cognition test, and received a score of 30/30 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.[77]" I think we should add "indicating a normal level of cognitive function." Without that it sounds like "ooh, perfect score!" as Trump himself bragged. We should make clear that it merely indicates "normal". --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I prefer Javert2113's edition of the content, but would like to see "...received a score of 30/30, indicating a normal level of cognitive function" to be tweaked as "...received a score of 30/30, indicating cognitive function within normal limits." -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Having read the above comments, I have two options to present:

1. "Trump requested, and was administered, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment; he received a score of 30/30, indicating cognitive function within normal limits."
2. "Trump requested, and was administered, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment; he received a score of 30/30, indicating no cognitive impairment."

Thoughts on either one? I'm partial to the former. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 15:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the first but would accept the second. Both are improvements over what we had to start with, so thank you everybody for the productive discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

3. Remove from the article. It's really only meaningful because we know that there was background chatter about POTUS being senile or stupid or something. But we don't state that. So by itself, this is really adding no value to the article. It's not meaningful or informative any more than his shoe size or similar details. Besides, its highly doubtful that Trump would waste his time or Ronny Jackson's actually working through the Assessment. This was all just for post-exam spin. That's how RS describe everything about Trump's medical "reports". SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I have often seen you mention your theory that Trump didn't really take the cognitive test, i.e., Jackson lied about it. I have never seen a Reliable Source mention that possibility. So when you cite it as a reason to omit something, I for one don't give it any credence. There has been far more speculation about Trump's mental competence than about his cardiac health, so IMO this is a valid thing to include in our report. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe, SPECIFICO, that we can necessarily assume Rear Admiral Jackson lied: such a thing would chip away at his credibility, and thus (possibly) harm him at his next review for licensure. And that would be bad for him. All in all, I suppose we must believe Admiral Jackson based on the reliable sources doing so. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 18:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I do admit, the sudden change from cholesterol to possible cognitive decline is somewhat jarring... — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 16:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why Trump would lie about taking the test, but I agree with SPECIFICO that there's no real need to have this information in this article. We wouldn't include information about a standard health check revealing no health concerns on any other person. I'm happy with either of Javert2113's wordings if the sentence is kept. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why lie? Less work. But anyway I think the way this would fit into the article is in a general discussion of the unusual statements Trump is known for making, whether provocative, false, ignorant, or seemingly confused. All of these behaviors relate to an underlying phenomenon that has been discussed in RS sources. Citing the instances of this behavior (including individual reactions "he's a moron" "he's a racist", etc.) is not encyclopedic unless a single such behavior turns out to change the course of history. So far so good on that one, but the behaviors have been widely discussed. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The whole sentence should be removed. This cognitive test was requested following intense speculation by the press on Trump's mental faculties. Now that all the fuss has died down, this episode lacks weight for this BLP. — JFG ^talk 20:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, the "remove" folks are right: let's not give this fact too much weight in our overall analysis. As I put it in, I'll take it out; no doubt discussion will continue occurring, but given my earlier worry about the sudden change in scope, I think this merits removal for now from this BLP. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 22:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm just going to repeat my post from last time this topic came up: In addition to this book, take a look at this, which highlights it and notes both the conclusions and the limitations of the MoCA test. I think that the book combined with that paper is sufficient to devote a sentence to the concerns about his mental health, to note the test, and finally to note the test's limitations. Additional coverage of it is here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I think we should absolutely note the concerns about his mental health (but cite them to better sources than op-eds and to WP:PRIMARY press speculation; we have better sources than that available.) Then we can mention the test score and the discussion of what it means, probably with one sentence for each of those three points. (Possibly this would require a new RFC on how to cover his mental health; note that the vast majority of sources linked above are from 2018 - after the most recent RFC there was a lot more coverage. Though either way, my reading of the RFC outcomes is that we can note that general concern about his mental health exists in coverage and among political commentators provided we do not specifically mention any opinions by mental health professionals who have not examined him.)--Aquillion (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Presidential salary

I recently added a mention of Trump's unusual practice of donating his presidential salary to various government agencies.[20] SPECIFICO disagreed,[21] so let's hear from other editors. I believe that a short mention of this fact is relevant. I placed it at the end of the Wealth section, just after we show Trump's annual revenue from his business, so that readers have a better understanding of his sources of income. — JFG ^talk 22:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was already in the article. It's worth a mention (although not an update every quarter when he announces his latest donation). BTW it's not THAT unusual. John F. Kennedy and Herbert Hoover did the same; in fact we have a whole article about such people.[22] --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was there earlier too; did not care to check when/how it had been removed. — JFG ^talk 14:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not "unusual" at all. Please tell us why you think this is "relevant" and relevant to what and why this would go in his bio rather than in his Presidency article? A $400,000 pre-tax donation is not unusual for a person of Trump's wealth. Thousands of Americans donate more than this amount annually. Also, what's the relevance to his business income? Scripture tells us to donate 10%, not 1/10 of 1%. It doesn't diminish his after tax income enough to invalidate the preceding figures. It's trivia at best. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Only 3 presidents out of 45 forgoing their salary is definitely unusual. Relevance is in the eye of the beholder, so let's wait for more comments by other editors. And what's the relevance of scripture in this discussion? — JFG ^talk 14:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Please respond to the given question Please tell us why you think this is "relevant" and relevant to what and why this would go in his bio rather than in his Presidency article? A $400,000 pre-tax donation is not unusual for a person of Trump's wealth. Thousands of Americans donate more than this amount annually. Also, what's the relevance to his business income? This bit is already in the Presidency article. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Correct, and so is yours. We happen to disagree, no big deal. This is why, after your revert, I opened the discussion to the wider community of interested editors. — JFG ^talk 18:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't state my personal opinion. I have none. This is pretty simple: You proposed to include the bit about the "donation". I asked you to justify your POV according to the editorial standard of relevance. The onus is on you. If you decline to respond, the content is not going to remain in the article. Please tell us why you think this is "relevant" and relevant to what and why this would go in his bio rather than in his Presidency article? A $400,000 pre-tax donation is not unusual for a person of Trump's wealth. Thousands of Americans donate more than this amount annually. Also, what's the relevance to his business income? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It is fine in the wealth section, as long as we don't make any comment saying it unusual or something along those lines. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Why does this trivia belong in an encyclopedia? We don't mention the amount of the Presidential salary, so it's not like we need to mention some purported offset. SPECIFICO talk 12:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem to have enough weight/importance to me. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Sure, if you include the fact that Trump continually violates the emoluments clause(1,2,3) and the amount he charges the secret service to use his golf carte at Mar Lago far exceeds the 400k salary he donates.(1,2) Dave Dial (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Expenses related to the presidency are not income for the President; you may find Trump's golfing unfair, but that's not what we are discussing here. Regarding the emoluments clause, it is prudent to wait until one of the legal cases raised produces some kind of outcome. — JFG ^talk 18:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

First, you're wrong. Second, it's context. If Trump is donating his 400k salary, but costing the taxpayers X-amount more because of his golfing trips to his private golfing resorts, while profiting from those trips(you know, because he owns the place), it's about context. Expenses related to the president are most definitely income, if you are paying yourself. You don't put in one thing without mentioning the other. They are not separate, contextually speaking. Now that, is weight and NPOV. Dave Dial (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Requirements for inclusion: widespread coverage by RS, and relevance to the article. That appears to be the prevailing inclusion argument for inclusion of the occasional trivial material such as heel spurs and not asking God for forgiveness, along with all the speculation and unfounded claims. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The source does not say Trump donated his salary, but that Sarah Sanders told the press he did. So there is no reliable source for the claim. Based on past claims by Trump about donations to charity, the claim is dubious. Probably best to ignore unless there is confirmation one way or another. TFD (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting you should catch that, TFD, cause I was about to remark that this sounded like one of SHS's canards. At any rate this is a long article that needs lots of less newsy content with more breadth and perspective. I hope you'll be more active here because, as you know, I have long valued your contributions in many topic areas. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources confirm he did donate [23] [24] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Glad that's cleared up, thanks. Now we just have the UNDUE, contextualization, irrelevancy, and insignificance issues to resolve. SPECIFICO talk 21:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• This belongs in "Presidency of Donald Trump", once his term has ended and there is proof that he has actually donated his entire salary and where the donations went. So far - after some prodding by the media - he has made some tax-deductible donations of his tax-payer funded salary to tax-payer funded government agencies whose "official" funding he has slashed by much more. Also, it isn't uncommon for independently rich office holders to donate their salaries; just to name a few: Kennedy (presidential and Senate salaries), mayor Michael Bloomberg, governor Mitt Romney, governor Schwarzenegger, and their bios don’t mention it. Meanwhile, the airfare alone for Trump’s 2017 trips to Mar-a-Lago was more than $6 million. For Trump’s 2017 Mar-a-Lago New Year’s eve bash, the Secret Service "spent $26,457.28 to rent lights, generators, tables and tents from companies near President Donald Trump’s Florida estate…" Maybe the next check should go to the EPA; they need it to pay for Pruitt’s $43,000 phone booth and a few bottles of moisturizer with ylang ylang, jasmine, and just a spritz of that "uplifting bergamotte" so Pruitt won’t have to deploy his security detail again. And here I thought that Minnesota was the "gofer" state. New movie being released: To grift and lie in D.C… Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I agree this is all unencyclopedic self-promotion and it's one of many instances of WP acting as adjunct to the White House press office repeating misrepresentations, self-promotion, or undue and unverified chatter simply because it's stated by officials and employees of Trump or the Trump Administration. To the extent editors feel any of this content really is relevant to this biography, it should be fully contextualized -- as for example we are beginning to do with Trump's implausible and unverified claims of personal wealth. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude per WP:UNDUE. And the point Dave Dial makes about giving a teeny amount of cash with one hand and taking a hundred bags of cash with the other is well made. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentations RE: tax returns

This revert [25] of well-sourced highly significant content relevant to Trump's election, the Mueller investigations, and Trump's business career and purported personal wealth, was reverted with the irrelevant edit summary that some of it is already mentioned within the body of the article. That is not, however, a valid reason to remove it from the lead nor to remove the part of it that is not in fact stated elsewhere. @JFG: if it is your intention to challenge this RS content by removal under DS, please justify why it should not be reinstated as written. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It's already in the article. I said that much in my edit summary. — JFG ^talk 20:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment. Some of it was in the article text. Some of it was not. Please respond to the stated concern. Also, when you remove text from the lead and are intending to challenge only its placement, it would save lots of time and trouble to relocate the remainder -- all or part -- to what you feel is the appropriate location in the article. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

My edit did not duplicate content already "addressed elsewhere" as your edit summary incorrectly stated. The financial disclosures section is part of the 2016 campaign section. Trump has been in office for 16 months now; he still hasn’t released his tax returns and continues to falsely claim that he can’t because "audit" - strictly according to the sources. It belongs in Trump’s personal bio, it’s Trump being Trump - say anything, the suckers will buy it, and if some of them don’t, trot out Kellyanne Conway to say that people don’t care. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG:, your statement, to wit It's already in the article. I said that much in my edit summary is false. Please check the text and edits and inform us whether you still believe there's grounds to keep this out of the article. Otherwise if nobody else has any concern, I think we should consider this a mistake and affirm that 432x should restore this sourced content. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

As stated there is existing content about the tax returns issue at Donald Trump#Financial disclosures. I see no rationale to include content about the tax returns issue in two different sections. To whatever extent there are bits in the contested content that are not present in the existing content, those bits can be added to the existing content subject to challenge. Or, one could propose moving the content (I think that would be too large a change to BOLD it at this article), but content in two places should not be on the table. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually no, Mandruss. You're just repeating JFG's equivocation. But he doesn't get two bites at the kumquat. His presumed (AGF!) error thinking that 432x's content already was in another part of the article was kindly explained to him as such. He responded by doubling down on his equivocation here,[26] denying the indicated difference in content that might have escaped his attention in his initial revert. Now we have nobody opposing the improved content that JFG reverted, and you, Mandruss are really telling us that if we go by the consensus and relocate it as JFG and you seem to prefer, that you reserve the right to do a second revert?? Really? That is not how the page restrictions work here. Otherwise folks could game 1RR and "consensus required" by playing hopscotch all across the sections of the article claiming they're within their rights. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Now we have nobody opposing the improved content that JFG reverted - Nobody except me and JFG (so far). Contrary to your statement, we are not "nobody". The AGF vio is all yours, and you are also constructing an elaborate policy-free rationale for completely discounting the views and arguments of opposing established editors, conveniently allowing you to assert a consensus that does not exist. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO seems to be utterly confused. Let's recap. Space4Time3Continuum2x added the following text:

Trump did not release any tax returns, in contrast to every president since Jimmy Carter,[80] and contrary to his 2014 promise to publish his tax returns if he ran for office.[80] He falsely claimed that he was unable to do so because his tax returns were under audit by the IRS. [80][81][82]

I reverted, stating that this information was already in the article. And it is indeed there, in much more detail:

Trump did not release his tax returns during his presidential campaign,[423] contrary to usual practice by every candidate since Gerald Ford in 1976.[424] Although it is tradition to do so, presidential candidates are not required by law to release them.[425] Trump's refusal led to speculation that he was hiding something.[426] He said that his tax returns were being audited, and his lawyers had advised him against releasing them.[427][428] However, no law prohibits the publication of tax returns during an audit.[429] Tax attorneys differ about whether such a release is wise legal strategy.[430] Trump has told the news media that his tax rate was none of their business, and that he tries to pay "as little tax as possible".

So I don't see how my edit summary was "irrelevant" according to SPECIFICO, or why I should provide her with "a valid reason to remove it from the lead" (we're not discussing the lead section).

Space4Time3Continuum2x is raising a different point, namely whether the information about Trump's tax returns should be placed in the "Wealth" section or in the "Campaign" section. This can surely be debated, however it seems to me that we have already had a similar discussion. As Mandruss says, duplicating the contents is a non-starter if we want to improve article quality. Minor details such as "since Gerald Ford" or "since Jimmy Carter" can be corrected if needs be. — JFG ^talk 16:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with JFG & Mandruss...we really need to move past this trivial material. The American public is not protesting or rioting over Trump not releasing his tax returns. Of far greater concern is the G7 and N. Korea. Whenever the tax return argument surfaces, I’m reminded of this, and I’m probably not alone. Enough is enough already. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the initial edit: I agree that "Financial disclosures" under 2016 campaign, and not "Wealth" under Personal life, is the correct section for tax disclosures; it is expected that prominent politicians release their returns and notable when they don't, but for general biographies it is not. Separately, the line about Trump being audited due to his being a "strong Christian" is absurd, but I don't think anything about it can be justifiably included at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The non-release belongs in both sections. It was relevant during the campaign, and it is relevant now because of the continuing situation. Maybe I should have used a different tense: "Trump has not released", "he is falsely claiming that he is unable". Why would anyone looking for current information on Trump's wealth and/or tax returns look in a section dealing with events prior to November 8, 2016? BTW, Gerald Ford is the one modern president who did NOT release his tax returns, but then he wasn't elected vice-president or president, but all other presidents & presidential candidates from Nixon to Hillary Clinton did. The sentence about tax attorneys differing about the release being a wise legal strategy should be deleted - legal strategy? Is someone getting sued? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It was relevant during the campaign, and it is relevant now because of the continuing situation. That is a viable argument for moving the content out of the "2016 presidential campaign" section, not to say that I necessarily support it at this point. It is not a viable argument for addressing the tax returns issue in two places. As far as I can tell nobody is suggesting that we would have to remove reference to the campaign if it were moved out of that section. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

We should not have the same information redundantly in two places. I favor the campaign section, which is the context in which it got covered. It's not really relevant to his "wealth". --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How was the victory " a surprise"?

According to this revert, I need to have a consensus. Shouldn't there be a neutral point of view? It may have been a surprise to the democrats, but not the republicans... Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed very recently, and is the result of a solid consensus among regular editors here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye75: The discussion can be found here. PackMecEng (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

An overwhelming majority of sources in worldwide coverage called this particular election result a surprise, sometimes in much stronger words such as a "stunning upset". Per WP:PEACOCK we are using "surprise victory" as the mildest term possible. @Computer40: a.k.a. Hawkeye75: you should change your signature to reflect your new user name, and allow editors to more easily communicate with you. — JFG ^talk 16:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: The latter issue has been addressed on their UTP,[27] and I expect their next talk space comment will show an updated signature. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m far more inclined to see it as an upset than a surprise. I’m sure the media and Dems were surprised as were the pollsters, so that probably should be mentioned considering a great deal of credibility was lost as a result of them not being in touch with the American people...and it appears the media still hasn’t learned from their mistakes, and with this debacle, it has gotten worse. If anything, that is the angle receiving widespread coverage in RS and probably should be included, not the stale tax info which is inconsequential. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"Not being in touch with the American people."

Yes, it turned out there were more horrid racists and gullible idiots than Democrats had assumed. Also, the lack of the (promised) release of Trump's tax returns is still a HUGE deal that should be covered, but it hasn't received coverage recently because of the several thousand other shocking things said or done in the interim. There are too many bad things happening for the media to keep up. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we add the famous G7 photo to the foreign policy section?

Or is it copyrighted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Everything is copyrighted. See below. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

What famous G7 photo? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This[28] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Interesting photo; but it's not cherry picking season. O3000 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think there's a very strong argument to be made for using that photo. Right now, it might have a WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENT smell about it, but there's no doubt the image is getting massive, worldwide coverage in all forms of old and new media. It perfectly illustrates the G7 summit, and the photo itself has become something of a phenomenon. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Give it a month and see if you feel the same. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There's not enough importance for a fair-use claim, and I don't know whether it's public domain or not. I don't see any rush to add it, but if it's public domain we may want to do so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Half the photos currently in the article should be replaced with better images or images of more significant subject matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the source, FYI: https://twitter.com/RegSprecher/status/1005475391920844801 Casprings (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment - The Berne Convention, of which the USA (jurisdiction for Wikipedia) has been a signatory since 1989, establishes that copyrights for creative works are automatically in force upon their creation without being asserted or declared. An author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Convention. quote from our article, not the convention itself. The operative questions are: a) has the work been released under a license which allows free use?; b) do we have a fair use rationale?; c) has the copyright expired? Of these, a) requires positive evidence of release, not absence of counter-evidence; c) is a fairly obvious "no"; and b), for mine, is a less obvious, but clear "no" for this article at this time, but a possible "yes" for an article on the 2018 G7 Summit. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for further reading. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The HuffPo article has links to six photos of that in-between sessions mingling scene, taken by six different photographers accompanying the German, French, Italian, US, Canadian, and Japanese teams, respectively. They show people small-talking and studying papers. No idea whether any of them are free to use, and I don't see the significance for this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we add the famous G7 photo to the foreign policy section? In a word, no. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Too many different POV captions floating around. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I said no above as I thought it was cherry-picking photos to make a point. But, I think I will eventually change my mind on this. More is coming out about the discussion at the time of the photo. The pic is iconic and is likely to last the test of time. Personal aside, there are probably political cartoonists that wished they had drawn this. Let’s wait a bit, and not yet reject it out of hand (assuming it passes copyright). O3000 (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Content on G7 summit

A section was added by SPECIFICO, removed by JFG, and restored by Casprings. I've removed it again. The material in question can be read here. Should the summit be discussed in the article? If so, where, in an existing section or its own section? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's too early to determine its real significance. But juxtaposed between Afghanistan and Russia, I would strongly lean towards against inclusion. Based on what we know here and today, it's nowhere near as important. This, obviously, can change in the future. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This page is about Donald Trump, the man, right? Might be better to make mention of it in terms of his presidency. Unless this becomes a major thing later, compared to the Russian matter and the Afghanistan strategy, this is somewhat trivial. (Quotidian stuff, for now, the President and Twitter.) As such, against inclusion here, for now. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 01:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it's necessary to once again remind editors about the ArbCom editing restrictions. This revert by User:Casprings violated bullet 1 of those restrictions. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeh but Trump reverted the Communique and the G-6 reinstated it w/o asking him. Also Kudlow and Navarro were not civil, and so forth. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No idea what ArbCom remedies have to do with Trump, G-6, Kudlow, or Navarro, but thanks for the very creative response. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. I would self-revert if it wasn't already reverted. That said, there should be more content on this general subject. Trade wars and alienation of long allies is historically important.Casprings (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That's right and don't forget the Canadian national security threat that we just found out about as well. I agree that it should be included. Gandydancer (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

All this is better discussed at Talk:Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. — JFG ^talk 04:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I just watched the CNN Kudlow interview and this bizarre POTUS behavior goes far beyond a foreign policy issue. Gandydancer (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

RS description of Trump"s mien and interaction.[29] SPECIFICO talk 07:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• According to WP:NPOV, this material merits inclusion in some form, probably with as few quotes as possible. The extensive international coverage shows that this is yet another unprecedented unpresidential action by Trump that has left the world stunned. Trump has personally and publicly insulted a leader of a major ally nation and escalated a trade war that could have damaging consequences for generations. [30][31][32][33][34][35] Astonishingly, while alienating Canada, Trump has seized the opportunity to cozy up to Russia again [36], the country that is actively trying to hack the US democracy. Let's not bury this on some policy article that few read. This is about Trump, the living person, and it's significant.- MrX 🖋 10:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  According to NPOV it is does not warrant inclusion here, but perhaps in the Presidency of article or as JFG above states the Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration it does.MONGO 11:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  @MrX: Chill, bro. — JFG ^talk 12:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• JFG, that is not a civil or appropriate response to MrX providing RS to support his editorial judgment. It's evasive and unconstructive. Here's one more reference, Trump Goes to War Against the Democracies, that takes a broader perspective to establish DUE WEIGHT for this content. It's time for you to drop your objection to this content, which relates to the statements of Trump over the course of many years and his actions as President to weaken the US' ties to its allies of the past 100 years and to key international agreements. This is not a case of an isolated event and no editor can credibly argue against this content with the false claim that it's "recentism" "sound-bites" or irrelevant to Trump's biography, compared to say his cholesterol test or pasting his name on an ice rink Zamboni. SPECIFICO talk 12:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

And like 1,000 prior "unpresidential" incidents, this will be forgotten in a week. We are WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:There is no deadline. Regarding MrX's alarmed comments, he may just be having a bad day. It happens to all of us, no big deal. — JFG ^talk 12:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

JFG, I didn't read MrX as "alarmed". My take on it was that he took your deletions at face value and was informing you of references to the longstanding and noteworthy Trump policies and actions that establish DUE WEIGHT for recent events. In the face of such sources, it's increasingly clear that there is no credible policy-based justification for further denials that this content belongs in Trump's bio. Every denial, in the face of the increasing accumulation of evidence and RS citations, diminishes the likelihood that your POV will prevail. It would benefit your case to respond in substance rather than empty dismissal. SPECIFICO talk 12:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, JFG, that was not a helpful response. It was rudely dismissive. If something of this magnitude is not important enough for this article, then I have no idea what we're trying to do here. - MrX 🖋 13:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought my tone appropriately conveyed that I meant no offense and was trying to bring some levity to the discussion. Sorry. On the edit itself, the "magnitude" will be easy to assess if/when the situation escalates into a bona fide trade war. As we have seen repeatedly (and not just with Trump), fiery rhetoric rarely leads to catastrophe. — JFG ^talk 13:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

What tone? You made a comment that plainly suggested that I needed to calm down. As it happens, I was completely calm when I wrote my comment, and I don't appreciate you effort to undermine my argument by suggesting otherwise.- MrX 🖋 17:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

And you still sound nervous. Never mind. I have already given my thoughts about the argument, so all we can do now is wait for more editors to voice their positions on the importance of this event. — JFG ^talk 19:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, actually you could just undo your revert and then either propose additional RS contextualizing content or not as you choose. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Leave it out for now. It's this week's news; we should wait to see if it has actual repercussions (for example if they sign a G6 agreement leaving out the US, or otherwise formalize a split between the US and its allies). It he does precipitate an actual break with our allies, that belongs here. If he merely triggered a spat with them, that goes in other articles as suggested above. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Did you see where Larry Kudlow claimed that the reason Trump beat up on our allies was so that he would look tough when he went to meet Kim? 0;-D In any case we are not likely to see any additional news or analysis about the G7 meeting while the Korea meeting is going on. The networks are in hyperdrive about North Korea, they can't talk about anything else. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, I think there's a problem with that extreme wait-and see approach: What are the real repercussions of pulling out of TPP, of renouncing Joint Iran Deal, of Spilling secrets to Lavrov+Kisliac, of dropping the Paris Accords, of ... and so forth? They don't ring a bell when the repercussions kick in. We have to take the measured and balanced assessments of RS as to what's significant and how to convey it. RS talk a lot about the apparent agenda of destabilizing the post-WW2 world order and US hegemony while at the same time acting weird about Putin and other dictators with investment dollars in their coffers. Many such discussions and much reportage is in this thread and more is readily available. Nobody is going to tap us on the shoulder next year and say "this is the result of Kudlow goofing out on Trudeau" or some such. But -- because there is a clear pattern, clear statements from POTUS and advisors, clear media and scholarly discussion of this constellation of facts and events -- we must include them for our readers, with appropriate caution and sensitivity to future developments of course. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• The G7 is inappropriate for this article as it is not biographical material -- just not a mjor life event. Try asking at the Presidency article instead. Even there I suspect it's just a momentary flash and not got as much coverage or lasting effect as 'covefefe', but that at least is where whatever amount should be. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Art of the Deal

It is an abject lie to say that Donald Trump co-authored the Art of the Deal, when it was actually ghostwritten... He wrote absolutely nothing in it. Not one sentence... That is an enormous misrepresentation of reality. Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, but the reliable source is...?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This was previously brought up on talk and blocked by a small number of editors who claimed that it was disparagement of Trump if we informed our readers that the book was ghostwritten. Check the archives. You'll most likely need to post an RfC with references because this baseless opposition is very likely to recur in one form or another. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Helpful translation: SPECIFICO was on the losing side of a consensus. I second her suggestion to check the archives. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

From the lead section of WP's most thoughtful and extensively researched page on The Art of the Deal:

The book received additional attention during Trump's 2016 campaign for the presidency of the United States. He cited it as one of his proudest accomplishments and his second-favorite book after the Bible. Schwartz expressed regrets about his involvement in the book, and both he and the book's publisher, Howard Kaminsky, said that Trump had played no role in the actual writing of the book. Trump has given conflicting accounts on the question of authorship.

SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The January discussion shows that the situation is not nearly as simple and clear-cut as you wish to make it seem—which is why you were on the losing side. I see no reason to revisit this unless someone has new arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Mandruss: I have expressed no wish here, and at any rate editorial decisions are not about anyone's "wishes". Please address your remarks to the editor who raised the concern. This is not a closed circle of editors and articles improve greatly when new editors join the discussion with fresh perspectives. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I welcome new perspectives. I don't welcome resurrection of settled issues based on old perspectives. Neither you nor the OP has presented an argument that wasn't made and defeated in prior discussions. They have introduced another vote, but consensus is not about votes. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be great to see a source or two that clearly explains Trump's role in writing the book. His own account would obviously not be reliable for our purposes.- MrX 🖋 16:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mrx: Read the January discussion, it isn't exceedingly long. We have such a source from Jane Mayer at New Yorker. A couple of editors assert that source as the definitive end-of-discussion, despite the fact that Mayer used the word co-author in another piece referring to the book around the same time. And ten or so other solid sources were shown to use the word. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Re-ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Myer wrote: "Schwartz had ghostwritten Trump’s 1987 breakthrough memoir, earning a joint byline on the cover, half of the book’s five-hundred-thousand-dollar advance, and half of the royalties." and further "In my phone interview with Trump, he initially said of Schwartz, “Tony was very good. He was the co-author.” But he dismissed Schwartz’s account of the writing process. “He didn’t write the book,” Trump told me. “I wrote the book. I wrote the book. It was my book." So why the heck are we treating Trump's account as factual, while ignoring Mayer's plain statement of fact that the book was ghostwritten by Schwartz? The OP is exactly right about this.- MrX 🖋 16:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We are not "treating Trump's account as factual". We are not even considering Trump's account. We are evaluating the body of RS on the subject—including Mayer herself. See my previous comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to go with reasoning over the totality of sources, it would be incorrect to say the book was ghostwritten, per the dictionary definition:
"to write for and in the name of another"
"to write (a speech, a book, etc.) for another who is the presumed or credited author"
If Schwartz had written the book and published it with only Trump's name on it, that would be a ghostwrite. That is not what happened, as the book clearly shows both names. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources? I don't see any citation to a dictionary that discusses this book? SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have already made the non-cherry-picked-sources argument—the same argument that prevailed in the January discussion—and that should have been enough. But if that is not enough, we don't need sources for the definitions of English words. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Co-authored means he helped write it. Did he, or did he simply pay the ghostwriter for co-author credit? If the latter, it should be made clear in the article. Facts matter.- MrX 🖋 17:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We could discuss changes to the existing content at Donald Trump#Books, which already uses both words. But we can't go into that much explanatory detail in the lead, and ghostwrite is incorrect as shown above, so the only option there is to remove reference to the book from the lead. I would not oppose that. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this the discussion in question? Ghost-writers usually wind up buried in the acknowledgments without mention of what their actual involvement was, along with family, friends, editors, publishers, etc. Schwartz is not only mentioned on the cover, he also wrote two thirds of the acknowledgments. Trump got 10 lines, thanking wife, kids, S.I. Newhouse (owner of Random House). Schwartz got 20 lines, thanking wife, kids, agent, Trump’s secretary Norma Foerderer, Trump’s brother Robert, several other people who "gave generously of their time", and five women who typed, photocopied, copyedited, researched, and fact-checked. Schwartz also made it quite clear that he did all the writing: WaPo, NewYorker, The Guardian, Independent. That included:

• Rephrasing: By his own description, his father, Fred, was relentlessly demanding, difficult and driven. Here’s how I phrased it in "The Art of the Deal": "My father is a wonderful man, but he is also very much a business guy and strong and tough as hell."
• Euphemizing: As Trump saw it, his older brother, Fred Jr., who became an alcoholic and died at age 42, was overwhelmed by his father. Or as I euphemized it in the book: "There were inevitably confrontations between the two of them. In most cases, Freddy came out on the short end." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

PS.: Trump also threatened to sue Schwartz but never followed up on it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: We most certainly can explain in the lead, with just a few more words, that Trump received co-authorship credit but Schwartz actually wrote the book. Your claim that "ghostwrite is incorrect as shown above" doesn't bear scrutiny in light of Mayer's clear statement that "Schwartz had ghostwritten Trump’s 1987 breakthrough memoir...". or these:

• "Trump's Art of the Deal ghostwriter explains why Trump's big North Korea deal went south"
• "And similar to the deal he struck with Schwartz to write his book"
• "Tony Schwartz, who wrote The Art of the Deal for Trump"
• "Schwartz, who spent months of one-on-one time with Trump while writing their 1987 bestseller"
• "And while The Art of the Deal might be the book that helped Trump garner quite a bit of fame, the person who ghostwrote it, Tony Schwartz, is a regular critic of the president."

While there certainly are sources that say that Schwartz "co-authored" the book, none of them seem to suggest that Trump actually "wrote" anything.- MrX 🖋 17:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Several confirm that he didn't, including Trump's lawyer. From Jane Mayer's interview on July 25, 2016: Howard Kaminsky, the former Random House head, laughed and said, "Trump didn’t write a postcard for us!" Trump's lawyer: Greenblatt’s letter does not actually refute Schwartz’s claim that he, not Trump, wrote the book. Instead, Greenblatt writes that Trump "was the source of all of the material in the Book and the inspiration for every word in the Book," rather than the author. Greenblatt acknowledges that Trump provided Schwartz "with the facts and facets of each of these deals in order for you to write them down." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: My claim that "ghostwrite is incorrect as shown above" bears scrutiny in light of the English dictionary, as I said. If you want to look to sources and ignore the dictionary, then look to all of the sources, not just the sources that support your position. Some of the other sources are linked in the January discussion, including one by Mayer. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO it doesn't really matter if we use the word "ghostwrite" or not (with the main issue here being that Schwartz is credited), what matters is that we make it clear whether Schwartz wrote all of it or not etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing in this area while this is under discussion violates the remedies, particularly with edit summary rationales amounting to "I've made the case in talk, the correctness of my position is self-evident, no further discussion is necessary"—typically a rationale seen from low-time editors—six hours after start of discussion. This is where I get off, and admins can use their discretion for sanctions or not, I don't really care. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss I didn't cherry pick sources. I searched for Trump Schwartz "the art of the deal" and reviewed to top sources from publications regarded as reliable on Wikipedia. Irregardless, we don't need to say that Schwartz ghostwrote the book; we simply need to say that he wrote it.- MrX 🖋 18:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say that high quality sources use ghost-write just fine, so I wouldn't say like Mandruss that it is "incorrect" to say so Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Noting that the end result of my fiddling around is basically modifying the #book section and reverting MrXs edit to the lede Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I disagree with your assertion that "sources appear generally to say closer to "Schwartz says he wrote the book" not directly state that)". I quoted several source above that state as a fact that Schwartz wrote the book. That fact is not contradicted by other sources saying that Schwartz said he wrote the book. Now if someone wants to produce some sources that say that Schwartz did not write the book, then we would have reason to question the other sources.- MrX 🖋 18:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, even then I'd consider it too much for the lead (and co-author is used by well-enough sources, including the hill source you cite just above, that it doesn't necessarily need qualification or clarification) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we need to have an RfC. - MrX 🖋 19:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it was fine to drop the disputed word "ghostwriter" and just relate the mainstream view that Schwartz and Trump are credited as co-authors and that Schwartz has said he wrote the book. That really sidesteps any of the disputed content in WP's voice. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Uhm, from a common sense perspective, which should be an integral part of good editorial judgment, one guy was contracted to write - the other guy was the subject. The subject happens to be a billionaire businessman who has been making deals all of his adult life, which he flamboyantly calls "the art of the deal". How would a book author know how to make the successful deals Trump made without hearing it directly from Trump? Better yet, looking at the rephrasing/euphamising mentioned above, it seems pretty obvious which of the sentences are closest to Trump's own vocabulary: *Rephrasing: By his own description, his father, Fred, was relentlessly demanding, difficult and driven. Here’s how I phrased it in "The Art of the Deal": "My father is a wonderful man, but he is also very much a business guy and strong and tough as hell." Knowing how Trump talks and tweets, the latter is far more Trumpism and closer to the way he talks than the former. The same with the euphemizing: As Trump saw it, his older brother, Fred Jr., who became an alcoholic and died at age 42, was overwhelmed by his father. Or as I euphemized it in the book: "There were inevitably confrontations between the two of them. In most cases, Freddy came out on the short end." Writers write what they're paid to write, and if the person who pays them doesn't like what they wrote, they make changes - it's called editing - and guess who was the chief editor? Now that Trump is president, everybody has their own version of a story, and publicity pays well - ranging from "professional ladies" to doctors to ghostwriters - they're involved, therefore they are likely biased. The latter is what we take into consideration. Who cares whether or not Trump sat hours upon hours at his computer hammering out his book, or if he paid someone to write what he dictated? What long lasting encyclopedic value does inclusion of that information have, especially considering it is based on nothing more than claims of he said-she said arguments? A sentence or two...maybe...nothing more. It's trivia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, are you telling us that Trump was a billionaire in 1987? You get the scoop on that one. Or do you have a source? BTW, "ghostwriter" is not the same as "amanuensis" -- but anyway we got rid of the ghostwriter bit. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Uhm...recognize the tense and spare the tension - "happens to be" and "was" have different meanings...I did not say he was a billionaire in 1987, so the answer to your question is "nopers". I also know the kind of work an ethical ghostwriter produces but that doesn't change anything here. It's still an allegation that can't be proven otherwise, so we follow what our PAGs tell us to do about such material. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC) PS: all that fringy ghostwriter material belongs over at The Art of the Deal, not here in the bio. 22:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wasting time here. Seems just another trolling or cannot drop the stick. We repeatedly have discussed ghostwriters (Clinton, Obama, Trump) and how the credit depends on the terms of the agreement and not on any unproven (unprovable) claims, and we have what the book and official publishing records said. Anything else seems too trivial to even discuss, never mind something going against prior consensus and all the hard evidence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Photo with Kim Jong un

Can someone include a photo with Kim into the article? It’s pretty significant. Sovietmessiah (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Kim Summit in Lead

Is there a reason that the North Korean summit is not mentioned in the lead under foreign policy? It is clearly noteworthy enough to be there. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It may be noteworthy, but we have no idea what to say about it at this time. I would await some clarity from RS reports. SPECIFICO talk 13:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Give it a few days for reports to come out and RS to say what actually happened. Seems rather important but who knows at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources lead, we follow. We'll have it up in a few days, no doubt, but the summit just ended. Give it some time. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 13:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

For now, we can just say, "Trump is the first US President to meet with the North Korean leader." Simple and gets the point across, once more RS come out we can expand if needed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is too early. The meeting may be the first, but that smacks of trivia. I bet we don't have the first meeting of other countries leader with the President.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think it's too early. NK and the US is not just a regular pair of countries. It is indeed quite significant for the US leader to meet the NK leader and one sentence in the lead is certainly acceptable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a clear pattern of when NOTNEWS and RECENTISM apply and when they don't as it relates to Trump - this is one of those times when both actually do apply...go figure. Besides, Trump hasn't had a chance to consult with his Twitter & FB followers to make sure they approve of his attempts to thwart a potential nuclear WWIII. What were you thinking, Sir Joseph? We also need to give his political detractors a bit more time to mull over this historic event, and for those who deem it necessary to consult with their media contacts as to how they should best present why Trump's efforts are a complete failure according to De Niro but with input from Dennis Rodman after he's had time to dry his tears, and to somehow include a Russian collusion angle to the meeting. On a serious note, I agree that we should wait at least a week. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)