Talk:Donald Trump

Open RfCs and surveys

• #Signed document about the Singapore summit
• #Forbes 400 tapes, again., section #Finding consensus on exact wording
• #Religion "honored to have a Jewish daughter"

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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

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[1] 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[2] 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[3] 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.[4] 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)

• I'm not following the history too well right now, but I support the version in the fourth green box (whatever proposal that is), with one caveat: since we have said that his statement was in 2018, I feel it necessary to clarify that we are talking about events that happened in the 1980s. We can say 1980s generally instead of 1982 specifically if that's the reason people are objecting to it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• If I can still comment on this, and it looks like I can, I agree with Compassionate727: the fourth option looks best with me, with the 1980s note thrown in. —Javert2113 (Let's chat! | Contributions) 01:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Version 4 I support version 4. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Finding consensus

Thanks for the new comments. Current status:

• Support 4th version, possibly adding "in the 1980s": JFG, Atsme, Compassionate727, Javert2113, Emir of Wikipedia
• Support prior text: Aquillion, SPECIFICO
• Support full removal: Markbassett (but that would go against the RfC outcome)

Who else would like to comment? — JFG ^talk 19:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Number 4 is a non-starter, as it violates the RfC requirement that 1982 be mentioned for context. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

1982 is already in the previous sentence for context, it would be bad prose to repeat it. And we have the suggestion to add "in the 1980s" to better reflect the source, as Greenberg alleged that Trump inflated his wealth repeatedly throughout the decade. — JFG ^talk 05:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Basically, since you're the editor who precipitated this situation, it would be best if you step back and don't act as emcee or moderator. This will be resolved in due time by discussion, not vote counting and prompts. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 18 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?[5] --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:Volunteer Marek - Thanks for that demonstration of Hyperbole and Sarcasm, illustrating two other forms of expression thats-not-a-lie in addition to Figurative. Now go observe that I said the title is spin from the author. It not Trump saying "Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally", it is a clickbait title to article that does not have content where Trump says he meant that literally. That Trump wanted to keep saying "founder", sure. But its a figurative expression. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, nonsense. It's pretty clear from his statement that he indeed meant it literally. You are demanding that he say "I mean it literally" at the end of his every claim, or it's not meant literally. Again, this is just lame ass excuse making for an obvious lie. Oh, wait. For "speaking figuratively". Hey, I guess some people enjoy being lied to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:03, 16 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 [6]. -- 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 [7] (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.[8] But the notion that they are just blatantly walking across in large numbers has been thoroughly debunked.[9] --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 [10] 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)

Misrepresentations RE: tax returns

This revert [11] 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,[12] 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,[13] 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[14] 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)

You make the best comment yet for the "Worst Thanksgiving ever" photo, and I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

For anyone still curious, it looks like German government works only enter the public domain when they are what they call "official works", which are really just government documents that pertain to the business of government itself and which the public needs access to (e.g. legislation, decrees, flags). So no, this is not in the public domain, and we can assume the German government retains all rights to this image. The United States government is very unique for releasing all creative works produced by it into the public domain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Thanks for the useful details on copyright practice. That settles the discussion. — JFG ^talk 19:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

At 594x396, it costs $175 in the US for non-commercial, non-promotional use. O3000 (talk) 19:30, 15 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.[15] 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. [16][17][18][19][20][21] Astonishingly, while alienating Canada, Trump has seized the opportunity to cozy up to Russia again [22], 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 G-7 and the larger issue of the degradation of the global post-WW2 alliance has now been scrubbed entirely. Clearly, it needs to be reinstalled in the article in some form and some location(s). This article is full of content that relates to the Presidency, and this may well be Trump's enduring accomplishment, according to current mainstream discussions. One of the editors who removed the content could help us all out by proposing what they would feel is appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 13 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)

User:Sovietmessiah just to note that it's been done. Looks like the photo seen at whitehouse.gov.

p.s. URL is https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/POTD-June-12-2018-1024x683.jpg

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:58, 16 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)

No way should this get a mention. Two politicians meet. There is lots of talk. Absolutely no impact yet on anyone anywhere in the rest of the world. It is not our job to give them the publicity they seek. Maybe in years to come.... HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Note I wasn't arguing that it didn't belong in the article, I'm arguing it is premature to mention in the lead.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the "wait a little bit" group, though even 24-48 hours may be enough. The two men met and took a photograph together, that much is certain. It is still unclear whether anything else was actually agreed to, or if there was simply bravado and restatements of current positions. Once there's something to say beyond that they met in the article body, it probably should be in the lead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Leave it out of the lead until there is a tangible impact, per HiLo48 and others. Or we can add all of his firsts from the G7 summit... - MrX 🖋 00:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Tangible impact? Like the impact of the Trump-Russia collusion allegations against Trump? Oh, wait - there was no impact on Trump, and no proof of collusion. Does that mean it should be left out? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

What? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• No - Belongs in Kim Jong-un. Possibly belongs in some other Trump related article. But, makes no sense at all for this article. I don't think it should be here at all until something substantive occurs, much less the lead, as we have other more closely related Trump articles. O3000 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude from lede for now - There's no question the meeting was historic, and there's a multitude of reliable sources that speak to the meeting's significance, and certainly this should be highlighted in Presidency of Donald Trump; however, the result of the meeting was largely vague statements of intent with no guarantees that have (thus far) made little biographical impact. I certainly anticipate this will become ledeworthy, as the full effect of this Chamberlain-esque debacle becomes apparent. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Why did you remove it from the article? It is certainly worthy of inclusion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't. I haven't edited the article itself since the end of May. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely lede worthy. First meeting ever between a sitting US President and a leader of NK is historic and a notable achievement even if it goes sideways.MONGO 13:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Wait per RECENTISM and NOTNEWS. Give the media an opportunity to figure out what actually happened so we can include substantive material (that we can include in the lede) instead of speculation and media's breaking news tendencies which are prone to errors. Give it time to incubate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Very notable and of lasting significance. Text should be brief and note that it was the first meeting between leaders of the US and NK. No text on the agreement reached at the meeting though, as it's unclear what's significant about that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude from lede for now, at least until someone has translated this into English: They will be doing things. I think he wants to do things. You would be surprised. Very smart. Very good negotiator. Wants to do the right thing. He brought up the fact that in the past they took dialogue or never were like we are which has never been like what has taken place now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Was that a bad translation or just how he talks? PackMecEng (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Transcript of press conference – verbatim what he said. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I see it in a few places now... oy vey PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

All it requires is a blue collar translator...not a biggy...it's simply a different form of broken English. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Oy vey sums it up very nicely. Another quote: We probably have some notes or something. They have actually detailed notes I imagine. We had a great conversation. A very heartfelt conversation. I have one of the great memories of all time. I don’t have to do that. Okay. I don’t want to discuss it. We have had numerous discussions. We had very important relationships established at Mike’s level and other levels. In fact, a couple of people are here from, as you know, from North Korea. They were in the room. We have a few people in the room. When we went into the final agreement, we did not go in cold. We went in with tremendous leadership and knowledge. That’s why we got it done. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Support putting that in the lead. It kind of sums it all up. - MrX 🖋 18:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

What, have you not seen his tweets :), or this gem? Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I try to stay away from twitter as much as possible. I honestly thought it was a bad translation of a Korean newspaper. lol PackMecEng (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with most people above on waiting for something substantive, which doesn't appear to have occurred; per sources, he gave away concessions, but only earned a "vague promise not unlike others the North Koreans have broken in the past" Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is another instance in which we are too absorbed with individual events and not the sinewy substance surrounding them. We now have had editors remove the entire Trade section, despite leaving all sorts of other less longstanding and less signficant personal and political material. The central RS narrative concerning the Singapore event is that it is another chapter in the ongoing capitulation to Russian and Chinese geopolitical and military interests. At some point days or years from now, such information will be found in this article. Today would be a good time to start. SPECIFICO talk 17:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes -- the amount of coverage and content seems to match what else is in the lead so go ahead -- but just a mention of it in the lead is all that would be appropriate. Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Signed document

Ok - here's the game changer, and let's do this first things first: CNN published the document which states the following:

1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
2. The United States and DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

This is what we should include in the article, along with the fact that the meeting was historic. No predictions, no speculation.

Survey

• Approve - recommend adding a sub-section with factual information as proposed above. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Not precisely sure what you want, but it appears you want to merely summarize the document, rather than the secondary sources covering and analyzing the promises made as per NPOV. This is not what we do - we base our articles on secondary coverage and analysis. This is to allow us to give context, and to comply with NPOV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I think the list from the statement may be better for another article, but we should include a concise summary of any well-sourced third-party analysis in this article.- MrX 🖋 18:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I assume you are talking about our North Korea subsection (under Foreign policy). It currently contains NOTHING about the meeting, although it describes the lead-up to the meeting. A paragraph should be added summarizing the meeting, including a sentence about the outcome. We certainly should not include the entire communique they put out at the end, which consists of vague pleasantries. Game changer? Oh, please. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• What was the outcome? I suppose we could say that reactions ranged from hope to confusion to concern, but that's editorial OR and it's true of just about everything. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie...please (not oh please) read the source, and my suggestion again, and yes, it should be included in the section mentioned, and because of its historic significance (regardless of who does or doesn't like it, RS have covered it and it is notable as such) it belongs in the lead ^{a summary, not the individual key points in the box above 19:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)} - and now that we have the actual document, we can properly present the material based on FACTS, only please. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Replying below. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I've added one sentence about the meeting to the "North Korea" section; while some content has been challenged, I feel there's consensus to discuss the summit in some form, and that my version is neutral. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding additional details: if the US does stop joint military efforts with South Korea as a result of the summit, that should be included; I don't see sourcing that supports including that yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This verbal commitment from Trump has gotten a lot of coverage and I think we should mention it. I will put in a sentence that he said it. If we actually do it, that will obviously need additional coverage, maybe in the South Korea subsection. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Are we voting on whether to include the entire 4-sentence agreement in this article? I certainly Oppose that; though we can summarize it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose adding this meaningless verbiage to the article. Wake me up when there's actual commitments/verification/timeline. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC*
• Oppose. It's a primary source, and here's one secondary source view of what it means: One expert told NK News that he believed Tuesday’s agreement had “zero practical value.” “We expected it would be a flop, but it’s floppier than anything we expected,” Andrei Lankov, a director at the Korea Risk Group – which owns and operates NK News – said. “The declaration is pretty much meaningless.” “The Americans could have extracted serious concessions, but it was not done,” he continued. “The North Koreans will be emboldened and the U.S. got nothing.” Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not. Dropping the full text of a treaty into a personal article (even a world leader) would be WP:UNDUE and inappropriate, and for laws, treaties, and legal documents, trying to paraphrase their meaning without relying on a secondary sources inevitably treads into WP:OR. We should look at what secondary sources are saying and use those, possibly waiting until we have enough to have a clear sense of what exactly it's worth, how significant it is, and how we should summarize it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Opposs as full quote, support summary – In the section below, MelanieN suggested an appropriate prose summary of the signed declaration; that's what we should insert. — JFG ^talk 12:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• How would we find an "appropriate summary" of such a document? SPECIFICO talk 12:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN aptly summarized it in just one sentence; see below. — JFG ^talk 12:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

We need consensus RS summary. If you'll review the key concern cited by many editors here, it's that the meaning of the document is unclear. In such a circumstance, WP editors' summary is OR. SPECIFICO talk 12:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedians summarize sources everyday; it's our job. It's only OR if you add your own interpretation or your own facts, instead of simply reporting what the source has stated. — JFG ^talk 12:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a matter of summarizing words. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Summary here - This is his BLP, should be summarizing here the detail that is in the summit article. This material is at the summit article here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Actually, no. The summary of the summit should be in Presidency of Donald Trump. What goes here is the summary of the summary of the summit at best. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Scjessey - That would be OK by me, and I'd also say as his BLP the brief amount should try and highlight the view from his life and effects on it. Markbassett (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as out of place here; should be included in Presidency of Donald Trump (in a much more condensed form), not here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose that detail should be included in Presidency of Donald Trump perhaps even in more detail there, but here we should just have a summary. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The subsection should lead with the factual events (date, time, place and purpose of meeting), note that it was an historical event, and stick only to the facts - no speculation, or predictions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, that's a primary document. Does not address its meaning or significance at all. That would be an inkblot test not encyclopedia text. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It's published and analyzed by secondary sources. Furthermore, do you remember the dossier? It is also a primary document but what was that work-around? I'm hoping editors here can resolve this issue, but an RfC is always a 2nd option if we need wider community input (which I probably should have done from the get-go). ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's just stick with our WP policies. SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you think we're doing? That is policy - see WP:PRIMARY which states: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia... You can always start a discussion at RS/N if you find any part of that confusing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"... but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You have to keep reading. 138.115.53.142 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Not applicable. This is about a literal quote and NOT an interpretation. Markbassett (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly - the IP is the one who should "keep reading" - A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. My proposal clearly demonstrated inclusion of #1 - #4 which could be cited to the RS, and I further qualified it with This is what we should include in the article, along with the fact that the meeting was historic. No predictions, no speculation. There was -0- interpretation proposed in my proposal. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The section should lead with summaries from reliable, high-quality secondary sources, and should rely on the interpretation, framing, and context of those sources to determine how we describe those things here. This is not complicated; we get our facts from secondary sources, including central facts like "what does this mean and what is its possible long-term significance, if any?" --Aquillion (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter (pingó mió) - not quite what I suggested. We quote the main points from the signed agreement. The lead-in and closing statement will comprise what RS have published as it relates to the facts being reported. It is too early to include commentary and opinions but not too early to state the facts of the event. If nothing/something more comes of it, the lead and section can always be updated. My line of thinking for this is exampled in the 4th paragraph of the lead at Kīlauea which includes recent news coverage of that event. Simple. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(moving my discussion with Atsme here; it doesn't belong in the Survey section): The meeting was historic, yes. It deserves a paragraph The communique was not, and certainly does not deserve to be quoted in full. We have made many such agreements with North Korea; most were more detailed than this one. The Clinton administration had an agreement; the Bush administration had one;[23] neither one was lived up to.[24] [25] If this one gets followed through on, THEN it will be historic. For now it is just a piece of paper, worthy of a one-sentence summary in the North Korea subsection. --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I have now added such a paragraph. I took the summary of the communique from the article 2018 North Korea–United States summit, so presumably it is already to some extent the product of discussion and consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, thanks for that approach, but I think that what works for an article only on that topic does not necessarily work here. Also it's clear there's at least as much sentiment against rushing this as there is to include it right now. Let's also remember this is his biography, at least 2 steps removed from that other article. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - better to just follow the cites. The judgement of what belongs or what deserves to be quoted or is seen as historic is simply not one that WP editors should be trying to make by giving an OR logic and OR construction for the article, and I am a bit concerned the other treaty logic also sounds like it came from a Rachel Maddow show or something. While both the Bush Six-party talks and Clinton Agreed Framework would make good "See Also" links to the summit article, I think we should just follow the cites and put in what they have in WP:DUE weight. If they give a lot of coverage to it then we do too; if they usually list the text, then we do too; if they do not say it is historic, then we also do not. Simple and easy. (Except for the getting WP editors to follow of course.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"Ok - here's the game changer..." That statement may ultimately become a game changer, but so far nothing has actually happened. We must say nothing more than state that such a statement has been issued. And can some editors please calm down and realise they are writing an encyclopaedia, not a twitter feed? HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know what to say about the "game changer" comment. It's like there are parallel universes, or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be a misunderstanding of my use of the term "game changer" so allow me to clarify: I originally opposed inclusion based on RECENTISM and NOTNEWS; however, the game changer for me was the fact that the agreement has since been published which allows us to cite/quote the key points per my proposal for inclusion. Please...let's get on the same page and stop reading things into an editor's comments that simply are not there. Anyone who has trouble reading (as I have had after eye surgery), or with sentence comprehension, or perhaps dyslexia or whatever - please, just ask me to explain, and I will happily oblige. We all share the same goal - to get the article right. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion - Seems clear we can wrap this up not to include at this time. Possibly revisit in the future if RS tell us anything significant comes of it. SPECIFICO talk 15:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Kim summit in the article at all

The earlier discussion was about whether to put this in the lede, and there was clearly no consensus to do so. I hadn't seen any objection to mentioning it in the article text so I added a paragraph to the North Korea subsection of the Foreign policy section. SPECIFICO reverted it [26], apparently believing that we should wait a month or two to see if coverage of this is undue WEIGHT. I am truly surprised at that belief - it certainly has far more weight than other things we discuss in that section, such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem or a troop increase in Afghanistan - and I felt it was unfair to our readers to have nothing about the story that has dominated the headlines for a week and gotten heavy coverage for the past two months since it was first proposed. But let's discuss it here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Just so we are clear what we are talking about: the article previously contained, and now contains again, a single sentence:

On June 12. 2018, after several rounds of preliminary staff-level meetings, Trump and Kim met at a hotel in Singapore.

What I added, and SPECIFICO removed, was

They talked one-on-one with only interpreters present, then had a working lunch along with staff and advisors. They signed a joint statement agreeing to new peaceful relations, security guarantees for North Korea, reaffirmation of North Korea's promise to work toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, recovery of soldiers' remains, and follow-up negotiations between high-level officials. At a followup press conference, Trump announced that the U.S. will stop holding joint military exercises with South Korea, calling them "provocative".

Sources

Was that TMI? Let’s discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the text as it's written, but I think we should add one sentence that notes: 1) the summit was seen as de-escalatory by experts (i.e. there had been bellicose rhetoric by both sides since Trump took office), 2) the substance of the "agreement" was weak in terms of past agreements and in the context of the current challenges. This can be supported by RS, but I don't have time to dig them up at the moment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I am roughly OK with what you wrote, except for the sentence "They talked one-on-one with only interpreters present, then had a working lunch along with staff and advisors.", which is trivial. Also, if we are going to add that Trump announced the end to war games, we need to also add that the announcement blindsided South Korea and the US military.[27] - MrX 🖋 23:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this info belongs in the Presidency article. If something comes off it then it may be significant enough for this article as well, but we're not there yet.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, looking forward to more comments. I don't think we should get into analysis and commentary about the meeting. TMI for a biography; leave it for the Summit and Foreign policy articles. But I do think we should give more detail than simply the fact that it happened. Looking at the "weight" of our coverage in that North Korea subsection: we have a paragraph about the increasing tension and threats during 2017. We have a paragraph about the planning for the meeting, including its cancellation and rescheduling. But we can’t say anything about what happened at the meeting? --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Marek, it's easy to justify even a premature version of this summit content in the Presidency article. I also thank MelanieN for pointing out that there's a lot of undue mention of dubious Presidential "achievements" in this bio article. I would continue to trim them to achieve a real bio. Things that are either facts of his life or that RS are very clear will be memorable to his legacy. And to beat my horse again -- how can we omit mention of his America First evisceration of the Post-Ww2 Alliance, widely noted, reported, and analyzed - and an unthinkable development as little as 4 years ago that is one of his few substantive accomplishments. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I say again, nothing substantive has actually happened yet as a result of the meeting. These guys are politicians. Words are their stock in trade, and words is all we have. We must be very careful about even suggesting that anything has actually changed. Just slow down a bit everyone. Please. Oh, and I agree that this is all more suited to the Presidency article, rather than this one. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I like what you did, Melanie, except for the trivia so I agree with what MrX said about that, but not so much about the term "blindsiding" as I saw no real evidence in that regard. The article says the S.K. Defense Ministry issued a "curt statement" but I didn't see anything in the article about it beyond that comment. I think we need to clarify the part about ending the "war games", including the costs, and also the VP's statement which was echoed by Sen Gardner in a tweet: “@VP was very clear: regular readiness training and training exchanges will continue”. That info is included in the same NYTimes article with other material relating to Trump's decision - all were given equal weight. Former Obama officials expressed concerns - no big surprise there - including McKeon's comment: “On the face of it, seems like a pretty big concession”....but that is mostly speculation until we see what Un does on his end. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN's version was just fine. I did not see anything trivial about mentioning that Kim and Trump had a semi-private talk followed by a working luncheon with their high level support staffs.--MONGO 01:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I have not seen any RS discussion of the "cost savings" of discontinuing security preparedness in the South China Sea except to express utter amazement that Trump would go so far beyond any credible posture and that Pence and others would have to walk back POTUS pronouncements while they were still warm, less than 12 hours afterward. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Atsme: "un" is his middle name. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really middle names in Korean... Jong-un is his first name. PackMecEng (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Good-un. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• This "summit" with the dictator of a smallish country which resulted in words that RS mostly describe as "more words" and "feelings" is in while the G-7 summit Trump torpedoed can't be mentioned? No way! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Add Melanie's version and then rewrite the "North Korea" foreign policy section. It reads like Hawaii is still preparing for imminent nuclear attack while Reliable Sources(tm) are now portraying NK as insignificant and unworthy of attention by the US president when less than a year ago they were showing maps of where Experts(tm) thought NK missiles could reach and hawai were placing their kids in storm drains . The departure from "six party talks" as well as the thawing relationship between NK and SK is historic and unprecedented since before WW2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.111.108 (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

...if it's real. The problem is that all we have so far is words from politicians. I work on the basis of not believing them until they prove me wrong. I am awaiting definite actions. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The summit happened. NK and SK are talking and have met a few times with each crossing over the armistice. Those are simple facts. We aren't in the WP:CRYSTAL business. It's not like we are reporting the reunification of Korea, just the reality of what has occurred. The meetings are unprecedented and historic. Certainly as worthy of writing about as Clinton's North Korean deals as well as Obama's. All have tried to denuclearize NK and the attempts are all noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.111.108 (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I cannot get as excited as you seem to be about mere words. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include – I agree to Melanie's proposed text, except the last sentence about halting military drills, because this was only volunteered by Trump in his press conference, and the precise outcome is not yet clear (next drills are scheduled for August, so I suppose we'll find out soon). Reporting on what happened at the summit and what was jointly declared, even if "mere words", is highly encyclopedic and DUE. — JFG ^talk 12:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Query On what basis would we exclude the documented proclamation by the Commander in Chief of the US Military that he is suspending military maneuvers? SPECIFICO talk 12:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Because that's just something he mentioned to the press, and has not been confirmed by the White House or the DoD. Ditto with Trump's statement that Kim would scuttle a missile engine test site: no confirmation from North Korea, so too early to mention. — JFG ^talk 12:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Surely you are not suggesting that the supreme commander's statement as to his own military is equivalent to the same individual's second-hand statement about what he expects his adversary to do? What do you mean by "The White House" confirming the words of a US President? That is not easy to understand. SPECIFICO talk 12:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen a White House statement or a DoD statement in writing? I haven't. Trump's blather is notoriously unreliable. — JFG ^talk 12:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Any addition to the article that includes the "essence" of the nebulous, meaningless statement signed by Trump and Kim, but excludes the astounding plan to suspend "provocative" war games that shocked the South Koreans and other allies in the region without securing any concessions will get no support from me. It was literally THE most talked/written about aspect of the summit after the actual meeting itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG:}Help us understand what you're saying. Are you saying that "The White House" overrules the President of the US? Who is "The White House?" Which of the two is in command of the US Military? Could you clarify your claims? What would be the basis for subordinating the Commander in Chief's declaration? Your personal opinion ("Trump's blather...") is not helpful. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Looking at this comment from you, On what basis would we excluded the documented proclamation by the Commander in Chief of the US Military that he is suspending military maneuvers?, I am hopelessly confused. You are the one who has been insisting we shouldn't say ANYTHING about what happened at the meeting, and certainly not anything about the final communique, because we need to wait for it to get digested by independent sources. At least I think that's what you have been saying; it's certainly why you reverted the addition of details about the meeting. And yet now you are saying that we SHOULD include a comment that Trump made at a next-day press conference? Could you please clarify your position? --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a line of text was dropped I will investigate. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. JFG is saying, when Trump says this apparently rash and reckless thing we disregard it because the President of USA and Commander in Chief does not speak for "The White House". This makes no sense and it reads as if he's sweeping Trump's statement under the rug -- a statement that horrified RS reporters and expert analysts. So I'm asking JFG to articulate the theory under which he thinks it's OK to ignore POTUS statement when RS say it reveals ignorance or incompetence but otherwise to accept POTUS words as being authoritative on a wide range of other subjects. I don't believe JFG has responded. We can't really take his suggestion seriously without some convincing rationale. So my question is about why one POTUS statement and not another? SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, could you please clarify your position? Do you think we should include details about the meeting and the communique they issued afterward? Do you think we should include Trump's statement about stopping joint military exercises with South Korea? --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. Regardless of any of our conclusions, we can't elevate the Joint Statement, but ignore Trump's off the cuff cancellation of military preparedness which is what JFG appears to propose. My view is we should leave the whole joint statement off. It's just bad theater and it's a flash-in-the-pan, already off the news and analysis cause today they got another bite at Anthony Weiner and Sara H. Sanders/Mexican juveniles is heating up. The nukes thing is over for 3-6 months, IMO, and who has said it amounts to a hill of beans? The shocking impromptu POTUS decision to change US military posture in Asia may be noteworthy of itself, and merits further discussion. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Include all of it. The same arguments were made to exclude mentioning the on again/off again/on again summit because it fit some preconceived notion/confirmation bias about "The Truth." . Write what both leaders said rather than trying to insert personal assessments of truthiness. Their statements are notable and verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.203.2 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not about "truth". Wikipedia is not just a collection of verified facts. Facts must also be significant ("noteworthy") and it's not clear that the 4 points in this document are significant in any respect. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include some - should follow WP:WEIGHT and have material on events in proportion to the amount of coverage -- roughly anyway, though that may mean other changes to this section. Googling, I see "fire and fury" has 56,000 hits and gets a line; so "Korean summit" having 1,840,000 hits looks like it should have 400 lines. That's really not feasible but perhaps makes the point that it's bigger than other things that are here. Seems also showing that other bits got an UNDUE amount of space and should look into having them reduced or removed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Trump hair" has 800,000,000 + hits. Let's not favor easy metrics over judgment. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump's cancellation of the joint military exercises should now be placed in the article, per discussion above. SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

NBC severing ties with Trump

This edit [28] claims to shorten "excess detail". But the detail happens to be the extraordinary and widely reported and discussed fact that NBC rebuked Trump and severed its ties due to remarks Trump made about immigrants -- one of his central points -- in his candidacy announcement. This content should be restored. I mistakenly reverted it less than 24 hours after a different unrelated revert, so I have restored the content for others to assess. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Meh - NBC rebuked Trump and Trump rebuked NBC - they both got what they wanted out of each other. There's mention of ties being severed over at The_Apprentice_(U.S._TV_series). ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bad edit. It needs to be reverted, but I think I'm overdrawn on reverts for a least a few hours.- MrX 🖋 17:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of this material. If anyone feels strongly about removing it, we can discuss it here.- MrX 🖋 17:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I say remove it, a media tiff about this is undue for here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a "media tiff" any more than Harvey Weinstein is a media tiff, the HBO/ATT merger is a media tiff, or unsolved murders of Russian Journalists is a "media tiff" ... Just cause it involves media does not make it a "media tiff". SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hissy fit? Would that work better? The rest is unrelated in importance and scale to the issue at hand. PackMecEng (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's important biographical information that should stay in the article. Editors should really seek a consensus on the talk page before removing long-standing, stable content. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It is important to the shows article, not important enough for this article. PackMecEng (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

So are you proposing removing all of the Apprentice material, or just the big reveal where Trump gets fired?- MrX 🖋 18:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing a trim of the Apprentice material, but this is a good start. PackMecEng (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I kinda think that a major network firing a major reality TV celebrity is important to mention in the major reality TV celebrity's biography. It's not just a "tiff".- MrX 🖋 18:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

We are very consistent in mentioning in the bio articles of Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey, Roseanne Barr, et. al. why they were terminated by their broadcast hosts SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly correct. Gandydancer (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The main reason is that is what they are most known for, that is not the case for Trump. PackMecEng (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait, what? I'm reasonably certain The Apprentice is the reason Trump had such high name recognition. It is doubtful he would've won the election without that show. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that was the case, but right now it certainly is not. PackMecEng (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get my arms around Atsme's "Matt Lauer is best known for sexual misconduct...Kevin Spacey is best known for sexual misconduct...Roseanne Barr is an American racist and twitter user...etc." Really? SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

And these days Trump is best known globally as the president of the USA, not as a minor reality tv star. PackMecEng (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is an absolutely ridiculous view to hold. His MULTI-YEAR, MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR, GLOBAL TV SHOW PHENOMENON that put him on the TV of the millions of Americans who like crappy TV is not something you can conveniently forget. Despite 8 years of the presidency, Ronald Reagan was (and still is) often referred to as "The Gipper". -- Scjessey (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Or "the kiester". I do not anticipate that the sexual misconduct will ever be removed from those folks articles, even if they sprout wings and fly to Hawaii. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Mister Ed with Wilbur and friend!

Lets see, 8 years as leader of the free world or about 12 years mainly on American tv? Yes he was known for the TV, and even got his start that way. But there is no way in heck anyone can reasonably say it was even close to as important as president. PackMecEng (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Trump has been in office for a year and half, and he is not the leader of the free world; he's the president of the United States.- MrX 🖋 21:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Did I miss an election? I don’t see how we can talk about The Apprentice and not mention the termination of its star. O3000 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the 8 years is a little crystal. But leader of the free world is a common title for president of the United States, even if Angela Merkel was called that for a tiny bit. My issue with the Apprentice section is that it is to long already. Currently longer than several prominent things he has done since then. PackMecEng (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

So remove the image of Rodman. As for leader of the free world, seems odd for a president who's motto is "America First". O3000 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Free_World#United_States has not changed since Trump has been in office. PackMecEng (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Good. Let's shorten the Apprentice. 3 points: 1. Trump portrayed a comic book version of a business magnate surrounded by average folks who reported directly to the potentate. AKA "flat organization structure". 2. This convinced half of America that Trump himself was a successful high profile business magnate. Kind of like thinking Marlon Brando was a gangster or Mr. Ed was a talking horse? 3. Trump was terminated because NBC refused to associate itself with what it deemed hate speech in Trump's campaign announcement. Any other important points? SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - back to the topic, yes it's a bit of excess detail. Not a strong necessity to reduce but certainly can be. I suggest trimming it a bit in an act of good faith. Maybe chop out the middle sentence? Might also seem less fluffy if it did not use fluffy cites (e.g. the Politico blog, 'Boy Genius Report', New Hampshire Union Leader paper, etc) and used more prominent publications that covered this story. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I did a few edits. See what you think. Detail can be found in the dedicated Apprentice article. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Not bad; I tweaked it a little, see what you think. I still believe we are giving too much importance to the back-and-forth between Trump and NBC around his departure from the show. Each side said they dumped the other, and they had other things to settle regarding Miss Universe; that situation contributed to the public feud. — JFG ^talk 17:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - those edits seem better, but do not address the paragraph that this thread is about -- This edit [29]. Again, I'll suggest cutting out the middle line (about NBC going for a 15th season) as a possible step for this topic -- reducing it down to Trump said he was out, and then NBC said they were cutting relationship. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Do not confuse The Apprentice with Miss Universe

The whole hoopla with NBC was related to their dispute around Miss Universe ownership, and we already address it in the relevant section Donald Trump#Miss Universe. Again, it should be removed from the section about The Apprentice. — JFG ^talk 05:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The two bits about NBC dumping him should be combined so that the total bloat in this section of the article can be reduced. NBC said they couldn't live with his statements. That means NBC couldn't do X they couldn't do Y they couldn't do Z... and so forth, but the overall fact is that Trump got severed by NBC under the terms of his contract, and then he apparently sold one of the shows to WWE (controlled by his friend and backer Linda McMahon) prior to her appointment to head the Small Business Administration.

So this is another good opportunity to remove excessive play-by-play detail from the article and replace it with contextualized summary text supported by RS narratives that focus on the key facts and factors for us. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - agree strongly with less play by play (unless a step had independent coverage) and contextual summary. RS narrative for summary is also desirable though more caution needed. It would only be for cases where RS widely agree such as widespread reaction about G7 and focus to events and nature, and only doing POV subsets, judgments, or speculation when it is needed for context to a subsequent part of narrative and is properly attributed. (e.g. if a lawsuit for DACA was based on campaign language viewed by X as racist, then that cause should be included... but if there is no result to explain then avoid just raw opinions on remarks.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasoned contributions here, Markbassett. Much of the space on this page is wasted on editors' personal attempts to discern due weight when we should be looking to secondary and tertiary NOTNEWS sources to do that for us. That does risk getting into some weeds about whether Judge Jeanine and her ilk are such a source, but I think the vast majority of WP editors understand what's meant by mainstream RS and I'm hopeful that we can move the content of this article more in that direction. SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Walk of Fame star

According to the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, Trump received the star not for The Apprentice but for having produced the Miss Universe contest, as reported by Christopher Zara in Fast Company magazine. (Kanye West complained that wife Kim Kardashian hadn't received one and was told that they don't have a category for reality TV and won't consider reality TV stars unless they have been nominated or won an Emmy, an Oscar, or a Grammy, i.e., "when they're legitimate actors or singers" (HuffPo, Yahoo). I moved the sentence from the Apprentice into the Miss Universe section (subsection of Side ventures). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Murals

So are we going to say something about the Trump murals at the Brownsville, Texas child detention camp that look like the propaganda murals of communist nations and dictatorships? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

So far you're not eliminated from editing the article.MONGO 15:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Revolting. But, I wouldn't add it. O3000 (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not think they belong but also a side note they have murals of several presidents there including Obama from slide 3 in the link. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course it shouldn't be added. There are murals of various presidents and it's extremely biased to put this as a Trump issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

But the one with Trump looks more evil than the others...maybe? It actually a big deal really, not the murals of course but the shelters are a point of contention. [30]MONGO 16:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not "extremely biased to put this as a Trump issue." Only Trump's administration detains refugees, separates children from their parents, puts them in camps where they only get to go outside for two hours a day, and then parades a bunch of people on TV that falsely conflate asylum seekers (what these people are) with illegal immigrants (what these people aren't) by saying this is being done to discourage illegal immigration. With that said, I never really had any expectation this would be a thing we added, even though Trump is weirdly the only president featured in the murals with an American flag. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There was that one Hillary mural in that slide show with an American flag. Though that was even more disturbing. PackMecEng (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"Only Trump's administration detains refuges"...wrong. "separates children from their parents"...wrong. then a couple maybes but not likely that this has happened "only" under Trump. Seems these issues were overlooked during Community Organizer Obama's terms? In the 90s during Clinton's administration we employed "expedited removal" all the time and that meant parents were sent home on next flight back or sent back across the border..and the kids, if US Citizens were, well, put in facilities till foster homes or legal relatives could be located..which could take months...etc.MONGO 17:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

How was it treated in our WP articles about Obama when it occurred during his administration in much larger numbers - see Newsweek???? Odd...but I haven't been able to find anything about that all-important information in any of the Obama articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Atsme - (side remark for this article, but ... you can try editing 'deporter in chief' in at Obama articles.) Markbassett (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@MONGO and Atsme: Separating children from their parents (often lying to them by claiming they need to see a lawyer, get bathed, get pictures taken and stuff) has not happened in recent memory. You are both confusing actions taken with these REFUGEES with the actions taken with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS in the past. They are NOT THE SAME THING. This is a new Trump administration policy that is arguably illegal because of the 1951 Refugee Convention. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You can add whatever you wish to the article and see if it stands or someone "challenges" it. Your characterization that this is a refugee crisis and not an illegal immigrant one must be muddied up by some over the pond notions on what we are talking about.MONGO 17:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

First, I have no intention of adding anything. I am the kind of editor who proposes things on the talk page and seeks consensus before adding something. Second, it says in the article I linked to at the top of this thread that the children are processed by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (which, strangely enough, deals with refugees). Finally, I may be British, but I have lived in the United States since 2001 - I have no idea why either detail has any relevance to this discussion, or my understanding of the issues. In fact, as a person who spent YEARS going through legal immigration at a cost of THOUSANDS of dollars, I am opposed to illegal immigration. I have a different view, however, of refugees seeking asylum from persecution/death in their own countries. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum about immigration policies. Please stick to article contents. — JFG talk 17:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The majority are immigrants seeking asylum which is faster and easier than going through routine immigration channels. Our US Immigration system sucks and needs to be fixed. Read the section "The Mexican government cracked down on the caravan — but some people decided to continue through to the US" - it's not that we're refusing refugees from war torn countries....regardless, wouldn't it be a shame if they fled Central America to escape drug dealers and murder, and then ended up in Chicago. Nope, the proposed material does not belong in this article. Atsme📞📧 18:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Well done for shitting all over Chicago, which is a favored pastime of His Royal Highness too. Also, nobody has actually proposed any material. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC) They are self-shitting...the media just reports it. As for not proposing any material - read your own question at the top of this section. What do you call it? Atsme📞📧 19:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC) I was asking if anyone was interested in mentioning it. I did not propose any text at any point. And how is you shitting all over Chicago any different from me shitting all over dumbass voters, BTW? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC) (1) Proposal = a suggestion put forward for consideration or discussion by others; (2) - If you are unable to see the difference between your unwarranted allegation that I shit all over Chicago which I cited to a RS vs your own unwarranted derogatory asinine allegations, specifically that "there were more horrid racists and gullible idiots than Democrats had assumed"...well, WP:CIR. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, which does not include teaching editors how to behave in a civil manner. You are certainly entitled to your own strong opinions, but not your own facts, so stop trying to force them on me. This discussion is over. Atsme📞📧 20:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC) @Atsme: And wouldn't it be a shame if a DACA kid, about to graduate from high school in Des Moines, got deported to Mexico where he was promptly murdered?[31] These things work both ways, my friend. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC) You're preaching to the choir and hitting a bit too close to home when you bring up DACA, which has become highly politicized, so let's move away from that discussion. My response to Scjessey's snark was related to the recent rise in undocumented immigrants coming into the US from Central America and Asia. This country can neither afford nor keep under control the growing plague of tent cities resulting from poverty and homelessness, many of which ironically are located in the very cities where citizens welcome undocumented immigrants with open arms, and then forget they exist. Reminding myself, NOTFORUM - stay on topic. Atsme📞📧 03:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC) @Atsme: The overall number of immigrants crossing the border is the lowest it has been since the early '70s and the number continues to drop, so the "can't afford" argument is bullshit, but I guess we don't want the facts to get in the way of a good narrative, do we? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC) You do know the "can't afford" put was in relation to "poverty and homelessness" and not necessarily to illegal immigration right? Past that, so what? It has nothing to do with the purposed text or this article. This should be closed at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Wait...thought they were "refugees", but now they are "immigrants". Glad we got that straight finally....excepting you forgot the "illegal" part in front of that.MONGO 15:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC) @MONGO: I understand that the sole purpose of your comment was to antagonize me; nevertheless, let me put you straight. I used the term "immigrants" because I was responding to a specific comment about, well, immigrants from Atsme. Secondly, I know people of your obvious political persuasion like to brand all immigrants as illegal, but the only "illegal" immigrants are those who cross the border illegally and/or stay in the US without the proper paperwork. When I say the "overall number" I am not breaking out illegal immigrants from the total number. To be clear, this has nothing to do with the completely separate refugee issue we were discussing earlier, although I suspect you knew that anyway, didn't you? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC) MelanieN ummm ... a bit nuts at "if a DACA kid, about to graduate from high school in Des Moines, got deported" -- since eligibility is HS graduate, and they're basically in their late 20s or early 30s now (time has passed since 2007). Some TV coverage giving you these mis-impressions ? (Well, they all do but still.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Mark, I'll reply on your talk page since this is off topic. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Not in this article. If there's an article about that location, it can be discussed there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's creepy as hell, and it has been covered by other sources,[32][33][34][35] but it's not really biographical material and I doubt that Trump had anything to do with it.- MrX 🖋 17:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

What MrX said, except I actually don't find it creepy, just completely pointless. Must be my Autism getting the better of me. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I can hardly say how angry these murals make me. These children have been separated from their homeland and then from their parents. And then these (goddamn) gigantic murals that only rub salt into their open wounds by making sure that they know that they are aliens in this country. The American Academy of Pediatrics rightfully says, "We can and must remember that immigrant children are still children; they need our protection, not prosecution.” [36] That said, I can't see that this information belongs in this particular article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Roy Cohn influence watered down

This edit [37] removes well-written English that conveys the statements of the cited source and its thrust and replaces the wording with a vague and vacuous version that vitiates this striking statement. This edit should be undone. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think that edit is an improvement. More clearly written, and less sensational. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The whole point of what Trump learned from Roy Cohn is to be "sensational" and the "maximum force response" is the direct forebear of the "maximum pressure meme" with respect to North Korea. See page 64 of the cited source. Article text should not be revised without regard for and inspection of the cited source. "Forceful" is not what Roy Cohn was about and not how he trained Trump to attack. The stable language reflected the cited source. The revision language is not true to the source or the subject. SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course the new language is true to the source; just read it. Are you going to just undo all my edits? Your fellow editors might as well retire and hand you the keys of the encyclopedia? Systematic opposition is unconstructive and unduly personal; please note that I have thanked you for some edits, while disagreeing with others. Do exercise some balance: we all want to bring this article up to Wikipedian standards of quality. — JFG ^talk 03:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If you will please take the time to read this and any of the abundant discussions of Trump's tutelage and inseparable companionship with Roy Cohn you will see that Cohn's style and his lessons to Trump were to "counterpunch" -- a term Trump still uses to proudly describe his style -- with overwhelming brutal and vicious attacks against any body or any thing that threatens his agenda. The stable language conveyed a bit of that in a short form. Yours removes the essesntial message of RS accounts. We can either reinstate that text or editors may wish to gather additional RS for an expanded account of this very strange but enduring surrogate father/son relationship that ended tragically for Trump with Cohn's death in the 1980's. Cohn is a key figure in Trump's life story. Perhaps the' key figure. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So “counterattacking with overwhelming force” is what you are missing in the rewritten sentence? That not a quote from Trump or Cohn; it is a phrase from the authors of the book, although it is not credited as a quote. The new version, “responded to attacks with forceful counterattacks,” faithfully reflects the language of the source, paraphrasing it per Wikipedia’s usual habit to avoid copyvio. IMO there can be no dispute that the new version is much better written, in terms of construction and clarity, without removing anything at all. --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm adding a specific expert summary of the Cohn style Trump learned from his mentor, attributing it to the source, whose judgment and reporting skills far surpass those of any WP editor here. There's similar discussion from a very different sort of journalist here [38] SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with what you added. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Super. That is even more clear than the text that was removed. That's why it pays to work through these things even if you can't stand my insistent charm. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed your insertion of a POV opinion by a columnist. — JFG ^talk 08:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Apprentice - reinsertion of text

This edit [39] reinserts undue and unsourced detail and presents it as fact rather than part of the TV show plot premise. This edit should be undone. SPECIFICO talk 23:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Valuable description of the show and emphasizes Trump's role; this is his biography after all. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please find a citation that verifies this and please verify that the "prize" was indeed a senior management role in a business owned by Trump. Yes this is his biography. That's why undue detail about the show would more appropriately go in the article about the show. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please check out our article List of The Apprentice (U.S.) candidates. In the lede section you will find a blue-link for each of the winners, with verified/sourced details about their work for Trump. Some stayed on after their one year, some left. I think they may have stopped hiring the person when they switched to celebrity contestants, but the description is definitely accurate for the early years. This is not an "undue detail", it was the whole premise of the show. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. And according to this article, it was the show that transformed him from New York tycoon to larger-than-life celebrity and credible presidential candidate. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

But the article for the show can't tell us what to put in his bio. This detail of the show didn't catapult Trump to celebrity. This is exactly why editors shouldn't rely on our own ideas as to what's DUE WEIGHT. And with this article already quite long and lots of more significant detail omitted -- like America First vs. the Post-WW2 World Order -- who did what to whom on a TV show doesn't seem to change the meaning or significance of Trump's life much. I think this is really the beauty of being able to wikilink to the place where readers can get infinite layers of detail if they keep clicking. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please do relax. I just restored a brief description of the show's premise. Not every reader has access to U.S. television. We're writing an encyclopedia here, not a "Trump is a fraud" book. — JFG ^talk 03:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s hard to follow such an active history, but here’s what I think happened: At 23:51 on June 14 SPECIFICO removed three things from the show’s section: the description of the show’s premise, how much Trump earned per episode, and the show’s Emmy nominations. At 18:05 on June 15 JFG restored one thing: the description of the show’s premise. Apparently nobody minds your removal of the other two things, but the description of the show has some defenders here. The restored sentence was longstanding content. We will continue to discuss it here for a few days, but the default is to keep it, and it will require consensus to keep it out. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It's clear to me that some details of American TV fiction are off topic and excessive detail to this bio when we have a separate article to convey them to readers who care. But as in so many of these little snippets, if we are to include it we need to do so in a way that gives full context and detail, not in a way that promotes the narrative put forth by involved characters. Like many other Trump ventures after the failure of his real estate development business, this show was crafted to present a certain narrative to the public. There is much RS discussion of that tactic and the extent to which its credible, the effect it had on his public image, and the returns it paid to his political career. If we're going to start adding description of TV details, they need to be NPOV, not the version promulgated by the principal, and they need to be presented with context and consequence. MelanieN, if you rush the reinsertion then as you say we'll need to launch an RfC and I think that would be unduly burdensome so I hope you'll give this some time to develop broad discussion and see what we come up with. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Certainly there is no rush. Only three people have commented so far; that's not enough for consensus. Anyhow, no "reinsertion" will be necessary; right now the information is in the article, as it should be while we discuss whether to remove it. Like I said, the default for long-standing material is keep. But let's see if consensus develops to remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. re "American TV fiction": Are you still clinging to your debunked opinion that the winners didn't actually get a job with the Trump organization? They did, you know. That is not "the narrative put forth by involved characters" or "the version promoted by the principal," it is a simple one-sentence description of what the show was about. No need for elaborate analysis, for "context and consequence"; that can be found at the linked article about the show. BTW you didn't seem to have any problem with the very similar descriptions of the premise of Celebrity Apprentice; you left them in. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, it said "senior management roles". Then you cite that they're blue-linked but a quick check reveals that the ones with valid articles had other basis for notability and that most of the winners have no such articles and that those with articles mostly have articles full of tags like unsourced, primary, OR etc.

I'll look at the Celebrity Apprentice bit, thanks.

I'm concerned that you're not specifying what you mean "the default is to keep" the old text. Are you saying that without overwhelming consensus to remove it, that text has somehow hardened and is part of the landscape like Mt. Rushmore? Articles generally get better over time as more content and context is available. That is not often the case with older, stable subjects such as 14th Century French literature, but it is certainly true of all these articles that relate to current or recent events. If you're claiming that the text can be reinserted just because it wasn't overwhelmingly rejected here -- rather than because nobody can actually justify it -- that does not seem right, particularly in these AP articles. Lots of this stuff was put in the article without much attention quite some time ago, and we should be continuously evaluating WEIGHT, context, alternative article locations on WP, and other factors. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you? SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"This article is under active arbitration remedies. Editors must obtain consensus on the talk page before reinstating any edits that have been challenged." Your edit was to remove material; part of that edit has been challenged, by restoring it; so the material cannot be removed again without consensus. The rest of your edit was not challenged, so it remains in effect. Come on, you know this. --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, considering that I'm the one who brought it to the talk page I give you credit for recognizing that I know this. But if you want to interpret that to mean that any old stale imperfect article text reinstated apparently without even a simple fact/verification check or search for better references, then we'll just need to go through endless RfC's to break the logjam. The DS rule was certainly not intended to empower obstinate POV editing without collaboration or engagement. Not that we're at that point yet by any means. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the sentence about Celebrity apprentice. That merely states they competed for prizes. That's innocuous enough and verifiable. the "senior management role" bit is obvious nonsense. Do you think Trump Organization risked its billions on telegenic wannabe's who show up for dramatically lit errands like starting a maid service or running a food truck? Or have sources said that's why so many of Trump's recent ventures got into legal trouble and/or failed? SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. again: We could talk about a slight rewording of the phrase. Right now it says “contestants competed for a high-level management job in one of Trump's businesses”. “High level management” could be a little puffish. Our article about the show says the show’s prize was “a one-year $250,000 starting contract to run one of Donald Trump's companies”. That's more precise than the vague "job". We could say that instead of “high level management job” if you prefer. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be PSS, and if a 3rd time, you simply add an i after the P. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually it would be PPS - "post postcript". I can pick nits just as well as you. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

There you go again - being all factually accurate - but as you can see, adding an "i" after the "P" creates confusion because no one knows which P is being referenced...(not to mention the fact that it screws-up my joke)...and that is the crux of WP editing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been wondering what the actual prize was – can't seem to find the source. If they competed for a job as an apprentice to Trump, how does that qualify as high-level management or even management? An unusually well-paid apprentice, but still an apprentice. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don’t know why this info - a one-year job with Trump for $250,000 - is being challenged; it’s common knowledge. (Some of them also got a car, but never mind.) Sources for the prize: CBS News his first female "Apprentice," handing her a job with his organization and a $250,000 salary, The New Yorker the winners—who do, in fact, go on to work for Trump, with a salary of $250,000, Fortune seven contestants have successfully won a spot as Trump’s apprentice for a year, which comes with a $250,000 payday, Today the winner of “The Apprentice” will end up with a year’s contract working for The Donald in one of his many companies, and a salary of $250,000 Whatever their actual work was, it's titled as management and pays like management. It’s ridiculous to even be arguing about this. Can we move on to something that actually needs to be researched? --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's get to work. There's plenty of RS material that gives a more NPOV and encyclopedic snapshot of the TV show. Starting with this [40] which tells me to remove the statement that the show was filmed in the Trump Tower. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I really can’t understand why you are going to the wall about this, but OK. The first six years were the ones that featured “aspiring, but otherwise unknown, businesspersons” competing for the prize of a job with Trump; the others were called “Celebrity Apprentice” and followed a different format. You have made a bunch of statements, above, about the shows produced under the original premise. Everything you said is incorrect.

• a quick check reveals that the ones with valid articles had other basis for notability Not true. They were deliberately chosen to be unknowns. Many of them then leveraged their win to go on to do other notable things.

• most of the winners have no such articles Not true. The first six (the ones under the original premise of competing for a job) all have articles. The articles in each case detail the “job” they got as their prize. #1 took charge of the construction of Trump Tower Chicago. #2 was “nominally managing the construction of Trump Place located in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, New York but in reality promoting it”. #3 supervised the renovation of Trump’s $25 million fixer-upper mansion in Florida. #4 supervised the renovation of the Taj Mahal and two other casinos. #5 supervised the Trump SoHo project. #6 oversaw the Trump at Cap Cana project and also became VP of sales and marketing for the Trump hotel in Las Vegas.

• those with articles mostly have articles full of tags like unsourced, primary, OR etc. Not true. Articles which do not contain any such tags: #1, #3, #4, #5, #6. Articles which do: #2 is tagged for additional citations.

• Oh, and apparently you didn’t actually look at the info about Celebrity Apprentice. It does not say they "completed for prizes”. It says they compete to win money for their charities.

Look, I don’t know why you are fighting this so hard, but let’s stay fact-based. You have yet to come up with an actual reason for removing this simple, well-sourced information. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Those articles of the former unknowns are nearly all AfD candidates, and tagged for "improvement", except maybe for "Omorosa". "Supervised the fixup of a $25 million mansion. That's a senior executive? That sounds like an administrative assistant who took messages from the licensed General Contractor. Wikipedia editors can't be suspending normal human intelligence to rebroadcast all the foolishness and self-promotion that is handed out by politicians, celebrities, or anyone else. You think the "VP marketing" for a Vegas strip hotel is a WP:NOTABLE individual? What about the tens of thousands of VP-Marketing folks for every other medium sized business in the USA or the world? Who's the VP-Marketing of Cracker Barrel? I can't seem to find that person's Wikipedia article. NPOV takes some critical evaluation of sources, their statements, their biases, their credibility, etc. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sake. One more comment and then I'm moving on to something constructive. It is still false (are you trying to rival Trump)?) that "nearly all" of the articles are tagged for "improvement". As I said above, only one of the six articles about the actual winner of a job has an article tag, for more sources. Omorosa was not one of the six winners BTW. The rest are notable, not because of their job title or previous or subsequent activities, but because they were the winners of a major hit TV show. Exactly like the winners of Survivor all have articles.[41] Anyhow, we are far afield from the actual issue under discussion here: should we include a brief description of the show's premise? I say yes. JFG says yes. You say no, for reasons you have never made clear. Do you disbelieve that they got the promised prize? (If that had been the case the winner would certainly have sued.) What other reason can you possibly have for not including the a simple description of the show? Please state your reason simply, in a brief separate paragraph below, and then let's you and I stop this wall of text and move on to let others comment. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

For whatever reason, MelanieN you seem to be straining the limit of Civility. I didn't say "nearly all the articles are tagged for improvement". I was referring to the articles of folks who were not otherwise notable and noting that most of the winners listed have no article at all. So any claim that the winners were launched into corporate careers is not borne out by the facts. Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos did not set up a catering tent on an Apprentice episode and get offered jobs as senior executives at Trump Steaks. The show was fiction start to finish. Let's all enjoy it as such. It's not like Leonard Nimoy can really read your mind or Dr. Bones can heal you with a turkey thermometer contraption either. It's just TV that somehow jumped the shark for the credulous 30%+ of the American population. I'm courteously replying to you -- I have done nothing to prolong this evident point or to shut others out of commenting. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you are still insisting that “most of the winners listed have no article at all” when I have shown, repeatedly, that all six of them do. We seem to be talking at cross purposes. But let’s move on. I gather that what you are objecting to is the phrase “in which contestants competed for a high-level management job in one of Trump's businesses”. Let’s just reword that. Most of the sources, as I quoted above, say the prize was “a one-year contract for a $250,000 job working for Trump”. Let’s leave out the amount (even though they all mention it) and say “in which the winner would be awarded a one-year contract for a job with the Trump Organization”. That is undeniably true; that’s what they competed for and that’s what the winner got. Would that satisfy you? --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO - try to look at it from a different perspective...few people in the world care (or even know) about that TV show. The readers who do know about it will go to the article to learn more about it. I think what we need here is a librarian who knows how to properly organize material/references/information. In the Trump BLP we summarize what he's done - and point to the main article about that topic - we don't try to stuff a 225lb body into a size 4 pair of pants....or a size 42DD into a size 8 blouse....however that equates into the various metrics (weights & measures). ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Another discussion where I fail to grasp why we are even having it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not convinced that describing the management role as "high-level" is necessary or accurate; everything else is correct. As an aside, it's technically not true that all winners of Survivor have articles; some are excluded due to WP:BLP1E concerns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO and SpaceTime also have a problem with “high level management job.” I’m going to change it as I proposed above. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"High-level" can be debated, but surely it was a "management job". The new version just says "a job", which could be anything. I will add "management" again. — JFG ^talk 08:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Religion

Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that."

User:JFG restored the above to the section about Trump's religion, claiming it is "very relevant, especially given baseless accusations of anti-semitism against Trump." So, firstly, how is this quote relevant? And secondly, where is the accusation of anti-semitism? zzz (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

1. You removed this long-standing sentence saying it was "irrelevant", the onus is on you to demonstrate its irrelevancy. 2. Accusations of Trump being a bigoted racist anti-semite borderline Nazi are all over the press; we even have a long section about such allegations in this very article. Not that we need to give them even more emphasis. The fact that Trump welcomed and embraced his daughter's conversion to Judaism is therefore ominously relevant. — JFG ^talk 04:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's get real. Trump is populist. If he has an audience he thinks would like to hear something that seems anti-Semitic, that's what he'll say. Of course he will also say that what his daughter does is fine. Consistency is not his forte. HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

1: Ok, It is irrelevant because it tells us nothing about Trump's religion or religious views (or anything else). I thought that was obvious, but now I have spelt it out for you. 2: The word "anti-semitism" is not even mentioned anywhere in the article. zzz (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling it out, that helps understand your perspective. I would argue that this fact does tell us something about Trump's religious views, namely that he is not strictly confined to his own religion, and shows tolerance (call it populism if you will). About point 2, that's a good thing. — JFG ^talk 05:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have hoped you'd have checked DUE WEIGHT to see whether this offhand remark to a Brooklyn Jewish weekly has been widely cited, acknowledged, discussed, or in any other way validated as significant WP article content. Rather disappointing to see it knee-jerked back in without any attention to all the reasons it didn't belong in the article in the first place. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Tolerance and populism are very different things. The former is a real, positive sentiment. The latter is purely politics, and can be a complete lie. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

He's "not strictly confined to his own religion" because he didn't disown his daughter? That seems like original research. And this being proof that he is tolerant, or not anti-semitic, also seems like original research (as well as irrelevant, since anti-semitism is not even mentioned in this article). zzz (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The relevant point is not that he "didn't disown his daughter", it's that when commenting on his daughter's conversion, he expressed a view on religion. That makes it relevant in this section of his bio. — JFG ^talk 05:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"I am very honoured": that is not a view on religion. zzz (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Weak exclude. There are similar quotes of him saying "I have a Jewish daughter", of him mentioning he has Jewish grandchildren, and of Ivanka saying he supported her conversion. I'd want to avoid debates arguing whether 'relevant' which seem OR, so will say it's google count indicates too small to include so UNDUE and should not→ be included. But ... being his daughter I could see it might be taken as acceptable too. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Exclude - It's just a vapid comment along the lines of "some of my best friends are black". It's not encyclopedic.- MrX 🖋 11:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Exclude - This is another example of a meaningless (at best) snippet of self-serving primary narrative that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia without wide coverage, secondary discussion and evaluation, and plenty of context. As experienced editors, surely we know WP is not the place to answer some unstated "anti-Semitic" charge with this standard response of the classic anti-Semite. Aside from anything else, it only makes Trump look bad. And "honored to have a (fill in the blank... Jewish daughter, Maserati, Friend in North Korea, new hairpiece...) is just vacuous drivel that degrades the biography of an important public figure. Honored? What? Like she might not get into the sorority because what? It tells us nothing about Trump with respect to religion. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Exclude - Whether it’s long-standing or not is irrelevant in this case. The section is about his religion, not his views of other people’s religions; it hasn’t been called "religious views" since 05:11, 20 Mar 17. @JFG: Your argument for keeping it is a tad POVish; you’re saying it’s needed to refute the "allegations in this very article" "of Trump being a bigoted racist anti-semite borderline Nazi" because it shows tolerance. If anywhere, it belongs in Public profile -> Racial views; he has said and tweeted numerous times that he’s "the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life," and, also, "the least racist person" (New York mag). That’s the "I cant’ be racist/homophobic/anti-semitic because some of my best friends are black, gay, Jewish" argument. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include somewhere. I thought it was good in the Religion section (he has said very little about his religious beliefs, but this suggests that tolerance is one of them) but it could be moved to the Racial views section. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include - ironic that it appears to be ok to include the views of others but not ok to include Trump’s own views about race and religion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude, but don't really care all that much - Honestly, it doesn't seem to add anything of value. It isn't even an adequate example of Trump expressing his views on religion. Nor is it doing any real harm being in the article. My preference would be to exclude it on the grounds that it is pointless having it, but I'm not going to complain if it's left in. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - Meh. It only suggests he supports his daughter. I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. O3000 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include This should be included somewhere in the article, but I can understand why some might prefer it in "Racial views" rather than religion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Emir, could you explain what you think Trump means by being "very honored" by his daughter's religious beliefs? I mean, she didn't convert to Trumpism. I seriously don't know what the sentence means. Maybe there's more context that would clarify? SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

^^Bad taste.^^ C'mon, you know what it means. Attempts to pigeonhole people typically backfires - leave it be. We cite what the sources say, the material is relevant, and there's no such think as Trumpism anymore than there is Obamaism; primarily beliefs of the young and impressionable who are still actively fighting "causes". Like the moon, the latter wanes over time. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, nobody has the slightest idea what that means, and if you or anyone else has a clue they would already have explained it to us so we might reconsider removing it. Is it like "I am honored that my wife is wearing Obsessed. I am honored my dog chases rabbits? I am honored my son likes FroYo? I'm confident that if you had any convincing answer you would have advanced your argument by explaining it to us. And it can't be that Trump thinks everything honors him, because that would mean we'd need to add all kinds of stuff to the article. I am honored Trudeau eats sloppy poutine. I am honored that Kim shaves half his head... SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

We're all ears, Atsme. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Put the ears away - your eyes are what's needed since reading is involved, beginning with the arguments for include which are far more convincing than those to exclude. We write about the notable/relevant material (quotes, statements of fact) that have been published by RS, and the subject of this discussion falls right in line with that guideline. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include in the religion section. There is no need to quibble over the significance of the word "honored". It is a positive response. It is a response in the affirmative. That is the point. It displays the quality of tolerance. Many charges surround Trump. Anything from antisemitism to Islamophobia to racism. But here we see an instance of Trump displaying tolerance. I think it should be included. He is Christian and his daughter converted to Judaism therefore the placement in the religion section seems correct to me. Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• That's entirely OR, and therefore irrelevant to what's being discussed here. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO—your "Exclude" reasoning is quite convoluted. You say "As experienced editors, surely we know WP is not the place to answer some unstated "anti-Semitic" charge with this standard response of the classic anti-Semite. Aside from anything else, it only makes Trump look bad." His comment is a positive comment. It doesn't make Trump look bad. You are reading into it in an unreasonable way. It is a relatively straightforward comment. "Honor" means "to regard with great respect" according to dictionary.com. It is your examples that are ridiculous, not Trump's use of the word. Honored that he has a "new hairpiece"? "I am honored my dog chases rabbits"? Just because you offer ridiculous uses for the word "honored" doesn't mean Trump is saying anything other than what he is saying. The section of the article under discussion is the "religion" section. Although he is Christian his daughter married a Jew and converted to Judaism and the non-Jewish father (Trump) is saying that he is "honored" that his daughter converted to another religion. You can call it original research but that is almost a classic example of an act or a statement displaying the trait of "tolerance". Furthermore I'm not arguing that we say for instance in the article that this shows his "tolerant" nature—so how is it "original research"? If this being said on a Talk page is "original research" then your saying that "it only makes Trump look bad" would be "original research" too, wouldn't it? Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

On WP we follow WP:WEIGHT. This meaningless curtsy to the Jewish readers of a fringy Brooklyn Jewish weekly newspaper, so obscure that it gets only 300 google search returns, (almost all non-RS), is of no significance at all and should never have been put in the article. Content in an article such as this has tens or hundreds of thousands of citation listings in a google search. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include, absolutely. Seems silly to even have to have a !vote for it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include. It seems to be a major point of interest as to what Trump's various bigotries and prejudices are. Therefore, it's notable enough to include for that reason. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude regardless of the importance of the controversies around Trump, this quote or Trump's response to Ivanka's conversion has not been covered much (in relation to the controversies or not), so it doesn't have enough weight to be here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude The words that come from Trump are so inconsistent they demonstrate nothing about his true beliefs. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include: It's a direct quote by Donald Trump about religion in a section about religion. It's sourced. So it seems well worthy of inclusion to me. Whether one can infer from his quote that it portrays him in a good or a bad light is irrelevant. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• @NoMoreHeroes: There are thousands of direct Trump quotes that can be found in reliable sources. In fact, many of his individual quotes are found in multiple sources. Are you suggesting that include all of his direct quotes in this article, or can you offer a reason for including this one found in only one source, while excluding many others?- MrX 🖋 18:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• @MrX: You misinterpreted my comment. I support including quotes from Donald Trump, reported by at least one reliable source, that pertain to his religious views, in the Religion section of his biography. I think the quote in question satisfies this criteria. If you find other quotes that follow this pattern and include them, I won't object. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying your position. I didn't intentionally misrepresent you, although I may have misinterpreted your comment. I'm still not sure how Trump feeling honored about his (converted) Jewish daughter is a statement of his religious views.- MrX 🖋 20:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude in marginal situations, it's almost never worth including a Trump quote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing and due weight?

Get real folks. A google search on "I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that" returns about 300 hits. 300 - that's it. This statement was in an interview Trump gave The Jewish Voice, a rather activist conservative Jewish weekly publication. This bit is a cherrypicked, meaningless and undue quote from Trump when he was trying to court votes in advance of the Republican primaries. It means nothing, it signifies nothing, it proves nothing, it is not fit for an encyclopedia article. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to take anyone's sentiment for inclusion seriously when these opinions appear to reflect nothing but their OR about the subject and nothing related to the source, due weight, or the context. This cherrypicked snippet is no different than Hilary confiding in the Pulaski Queen in Milwaukee that she craves kielbasa at midnight or thousands of similar little nothings. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You say "Get real folks." Thank you for your folksy observations. You say " This statement was in an interview Trump gave The Jewish Voice, a rather activist conservative Jewish weekly publication. This bit is a cherrypicked, meaningless and undue quote from Trump when he was trying to court votes in advance of the Republican primaries. It means nothing, it signifies nothing, it proves nothing, it is not fit for an encyclopedia article." In my opinion it is valid and relevant. You confuse original research with "argument". A Talk page is for presenting one's case for a side of an argument on a divisive question. The Jewish Voice obviously reports on Jewish concerns in addition to general news. Is this article read by Jews? If "yes", then why wouldn't Trump's comments on Judaism not be of relevance? I am not arguing this is only of interest to Jews. Readers of any background or identity be it religious or otherwise can be informed by such a comment about a father's view of his daughter's religious conversion. There is no need for cynicism here. On the one hand he is a politician but on the other hand he is a family-man with children. In my opinion, a well-rounded biography includes reliably-sourced commentary by the subject of the biography about life-cycle events including the marriage of children and possibly including interfaith marriage and the possible choice of a religion different from the father's. Is this article read by any people interested in interfaith marriage? If "yes" then how can you characterize this material as "cherrypicked, meaningless and undue"? Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

One has every right to be cynical about what a politician says, especially one such as Trump, well known for his hypocrisy and the contradictions in what he says. We should NEVER draw any conclusions about what any person believes based on what they say alone. This is more true for politicians like Trump than in most cases. It may be relevant to precisely quote what he said, but we must not write as if it is certain that he believes what he said. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course not—who said anything about "writ[ing] as if it is certain that he believes what he said"? We are referring to this edit. The edit reads: Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that." Bus stop (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So if you agree that it proves nothing, what is the point of including it? HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

What I said was that he is not only a politician. Is he a cynical father? I don't think we have reason to believe that. Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

We are not trying to "prove" anything by writing a biography or by including any given piece of material. We are compiling reliably-sourced material on a variety of subjects. He is not only a politician. He has a daughter who chose a religion different from himself. His response to that was that he is "honored" by his daughter's choice of a religion other than his own. As we know religious identity sometimes has relevance. Ultimately we don't know the exact relevance if any in this instance. But I don't think such uncertainty argues against inclusion of material on this subject. Biographies of politicians can contain some material of a non-political nature. Yes, he is the president of the USA, but a reader trying to understand what makes him "tick" is I think interested in his response to his daughter's religious conversion. Bus stop (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

They won't learn much from that quote. Trump is smart enough to say the right thing in front of each audience. We are not discussing "His response". We are discussing one response. A highly predictable one. One that says nothing about what he actually believes. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

We are all "smart enough to say the right thing in front of each audience" therefore I don't know what your point is. Ta-Nehisi Coates points out that "words don't have meaning without context". If our words are spoken publicly then there is the understanding that they are intended for a wider audience as well. Trump spoke the words under consideration in this discussion to a "Jewish" audience with the full understanding that other audiences would hear them as well. It is not that the words don't have meaning outside of their original context but that the words are chosen in acknowledgement of the identity of the person or people spoken to. We all speak this way and it is not hypocritical. We tailor our language and what we say to presumed attributes of identity in a target audience. Readers don't mistakenly assume Trump told the group of Giraffe Aficionados of America that he is honored his daughter converted to Judaism. It is understood that there is an applicable context for almost all things that are said. You can call his assertion into question if you have a source showing that he is not quite honored to have his daughter convert to Judaism. But in the absence of any reason for a contrary understanding of the man's sentiments on this point, I think we just accept his words at face value. He is not known to be fiercely religious. An anodyne assumption is that he truly is honored by the daughter's conversion. On the one hand I didn't "agree that it proves nothing" but on the other hand I don't think the statement is enormously meaningful either. I think we include it because it constitutes standard biographical material. How did the non-Jewish father react to his daughter's conversion to Judaism? Answer: he said he was "honored". The daughter's conversion raises a logical question and the material under discussion addresses that question. And we know that in many quarters religion raises serious questions and sometimes raises people's hackles. It is hardly irrelevant to provide insight into how the subject of this biography approaches the potentially divisive topic of religion. This brief quote does not tell us all that may be applicable to Trump's understanding of religion or "identity" in general but it seems to illustrate tolerance of his daughter's conversion to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop, unless you are prepared to address the policy-based issue of NPOV and DUE WEIGHT for this very weakly-sourced incidental remark, please don't post in this section. I have previously seen you argue, against policy and ultimate consensus, to insinuate purported Jewish connections into various BLPs. We don't do that without testing such article text for NPOV (among other policies). Please read the entire page at WP:NPOV and post only relevant comments here in this section and any other (non-repetitive) comments somewhere else. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—from where do you derive that there is a violation of either WP:NPOV or WP:OR? We are discussing a reliably sourced quote from Trump addressing his feeling on his daughter's conversion to Judaism. Please be specific. How and why would the inclusion of this material be in violation of any policy including WP:UNDUE? The added material is one sentence long. How is it WP:UNDUE? Is it off-topic? In a "Religion" section of an article on a biography of a living person we don't mention a reaction to a child's conversion to another religion? Please tell me how that reasoning works. Or point to policy language. But please be specific. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way I did not initiate this discussion. It was well underway when I joined in. (And of course the material under discussion was added to the article by another editor even before the discussion got underway on the Talk page.) So please do not lay sole blame on me for "insinuat[ing] purported Jewish connections into this BLP. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"... where do you derive that there is a violation of either WP:NPOV or WP:OR?" Easy. WP:BALASP says: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." For the WP:OR violation, scroll down to my post that begins "In case anyone cares".- MrX 🖋 18:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, this material contains OR. The source says:

"Donald Trump proudly entered the dinner hall flanked by his wife Melania, his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Also in attendance were Jared’s parents, Charles and Seryl Kushner. At a Jewish Voice interview, Trump was asked how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children, Trump stated, “Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that.”"

Yet, in the article we have:

"Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "... I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that.""

JFG has conflated feelings about Jewish grandchildren with commentary about Ivanka's conversion to Judaism. That seems like patent WP:OR to me.- MrX 🖋 18:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My January 2017 edit was only copyediting prior content; see below. No idea who wrote this in the first place, and it does not matter. — JFG ^talk 08:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying you did it knowingly or on purpose, but it does matter. It needs to be changed to accurately reflect the source. Anyone?- MrX 🖋 10:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Kinda like, by the time there are grandchildren the cat is out of the bag. Good catch. It looks like his deflection to Ivanka might have been his way of dodging the question about his grandchildren. This quote was picked up by remarkably few RS, which usually number in the thousands even for what Trump had for lunch last week. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump proudly entered the dinner hall flanked by his wife Melania, his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Also in attendance were Jared’s parents, Charles and Seryl Kushner. At a Jewish Voice interview, Trump was asked how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children, Trump stated, “Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that.” This is a reliable source, is it not? In my opinion we can either quote that or paraphrase it. Bus stop (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Why did you post this? No one is refuting that it's not a reliable source. The content as currently written doesn't follow the source. We don't have to include it simply because it exists.- MrX 🖋 22:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The source can be followed if there is a will to follow it. Donald Trump is not Jewish. But he expresses, according to reliable sources, that he is "honored" to have Jewish progeny. This fits within a section of the article called the "Religion" section. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a source can be followed. This one shouldn't be. It's trite, and it's a very poor expression of a "religious view". - MrX 🖋 00:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Look, it’s not just a matter of what he said, or to whom, or what he meant by “honored”. Forget the quibbling over that stuff. This is basically a matter of his actions. There are Christians who would disown a daughter who married a Jew and converted to Judaism. There are others who would try to hush up their daughter’s conversion, treat it as something “we don’t talk about.” Trump is no such person. He obviously loves his daughter as much as he ever did, is still very proud of her, respects and embraces her religious choice, and accepts and loves his son-in-law and grandchildren. That says something important about Trump and how he regards religion. And it deserves a mention in the religion section. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

With regards to RS and WEIGHT, let's not forget BALANCE - we actually need to add more about his views considering all the accusations of bias and anti-Semitism. I found plenty of RS in a simple Google search using Donald Trump is proud of his Jewish daughter which brought up about 6,350,000. I thought the official WH statement was interesting, and could be used instead: "Anyone that knows the President understands that he takes great pride in having a Jewish daughter and Jewish grandchildren. His love and respect for the Jewish people extends way beyond his family, and into the heart of Jewish American communities." I found a quote by Ivanka in Vanity Fair: (Ivanka has told friends that her father wore a yarmulke at her wedding, and that “if my father had an anti-Semitic bone in his body, I would know about it.”) Then after Ivanka gave birth to Theodore, Trump was quoted in The Times of Israel: “I love Israel. I’ve been with Israel so long in terms of — I’ve received some of my greatest honors from Israel. My father before me, incredible. My daughter, Ivanka, is about to have a beautiful Jewish baby,” Trump said. I think that pretty well covers it as far as notability and relevance to his BLP for inclusion. It's obviously an important part of his life, addresses the false allegations about his being anti-Semitic, and it has value on a global scale as it relates to his support of Israel and US foreign affairs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, there's a bit too much OR in your statement to use it for an editing decision. But just to follow that line of reasoning, I think what this shows is equally likely that Trump thinks l) religion is nonsense and he doesn't care about it at all - or 2) that the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support -- or maybe he thinks these guys have got some money because, well... you know. But Melanie what about DUE WEIGHT? This is an insignificant interview, one of thousands Trump gave in 2015-6 and it was not picked up by RS. It has about 300 google hits. Most of Trump's memorable statements have at least a thousand times as many. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I'm surprised that would make an argument like that. It completely ignores the dearth of sources that have bothered to take note of Trump's reply to a softball question. Your argument seems to be founded on rather convoluted hypothetical of what Trump could have said. That doesn't jibe with WP:V. I'm also surprised that you would ignore that rather glaring WP:OR introduced by JFG. As currently written, the material is a misrepresentation of what the source actual says. - MrX 🖋 00:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: I did not introduce OR at all. The edit you referenced[42] was trimming the section on religion, and the reference to Trump's response was already there before my edit. Prior text was: In reference to daughter Ivanka, who converted to Judaism before her marriage to Jared Kushner, Trump said… I changed it to Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Jared Kushner, Trump said… That was straightforward copyediting. Please be mindful of mischaracterizing work by your fellow editors. — JFG ^talk 08:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I stand by what I wrote. You changed the meaning of the sentence from "a reference to Ivanka" to "a referenced to Ivanka's conversion to Judaism". Those are not the same thing. One is a person; the other is a conversion. The source did not say anything about Trump honoring Ivanka's conversion. Facts matter.- MrX 🖋 10:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me try that again, both of you, and then I'm done. I'm not at all interested in what he may have said ("one insignificant interview", "Trump's reply to a softball question", etc.). I'm not interested in the particular quote you all have been arguing over for thousands of bytes. Forget all that. I'm interested in what he has DONE and continues to do: love and accept his daughter and her religious affiliation. That's a life decision on his part; it's not something he once said. As for the claim that he only said it to appeal to one small demographic (and SPECIFICO, shame on you for characterizing that demographic as "unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn"), that's frankly ridiculous. The truth is that he takes a political risk by embracing her Jewishness; there are many "Christians" among his base (here’s one example) who believe that Jews do not go to heaven and would not at all understand how he can accept his daughter being one of those people. He doesn't care what they think; he loves and is proud of his daughter. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie see the unwashed reference: [43]. The Orthodox of Brooklyn are not Trump Tower wannabe's. As a matter of fact, they are more devoted to study and prayer. Two activities for which we can safely say Trump has never shown the slightest interest or respect. Anyway, you continue to present your OR about religion, Christians and Jews. And how big of him it is to take the moneyed real estate heir Kuschner into the family. But that's all your OR and it almost sounds like you think it should be in the article even with no source, instead of just a miserably defective source. BTW, didja know that the Evangelicals are counting on the Jews to precipitate the Rapture. Yes, that Rapture. The bottom line is, we treat every statement by a politician to a group with skepticism, especially in a room full of prospective campaign donors. We treat Trump's statements with heightened skepticism because we know he's a fibber🤦‍♀️. And we ignore random statements that have not been picked up by mainstream RS to establish DUE WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—your incompetency as an editor is on display in your reference to religious Jews as "unwashed" and "dumb"[44]. Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN: I had to blink several times in disbelief to absorb what I read when I saw this: "the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support" I'm calling this out as anti-Semitism and completely inappropriate. Redactable, isn't it? Per a recent redaction on this very page an hour ago we can't refer to Kim Jong-Un as a "murderous dictator" but it's acceptable for an editor to refer to Jewish Hasidim as "unwashed" and "dumb"??? I appreciate you calling out SPECIFICO on these anti-Semitic statements she wrote here but am flabbergasted the comments are being allowed to stand. And without more of an admonishment that will actually mean something to SPECIFICO (and every Jewish person she just egregiously insulted). Do we need to start pinging admins and editors who we know are Jewish to get their opinions or am I calling out an elephant in the room that really isn't there? Help me, Rhonda -- I'm just still so shocked I don't know which end is up in Wikipedia any more. What the hell has happened to this place? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Blink all you want, but anyone who reads my words as written will see that you've misrepresented them to sound as if I were denigrating the folks with whom I speculated Trump might have little long-term affinity. Don't misrepresent other editors words -- especially in ways that just coincidentally make the misrepresented editor look bad. SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's offensive and disgusting. I don't care how much you try to explain it away. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You obviously still haven't read what I wrote. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I thought it was possible that SPECIFICO was trying to convey the scorn she assumes Trump feels toward these folks - that she was in effect putting that kind of language in his mouth. Maybe not, since she replied here defending the comment as referring to the “great unwashed”, i.e., the lower classes, the working class. Yes, it was offensive in context but I don’t think it should be redacted; I think it should stand along with the commentary on it. And this should be about enough commentary, let’s not get all off track about it.

SPECIFICO, yes, I know I have been making my argument without supporting it with sources. I wasn’t proposing language for the article, just saying why I think it should be included - and yes, the quote you are so scornful of would be perfectly good as a source, you have yet to suggest a policy-based reason for rejecting it, just that you don't think he meant it. To repeat my point one more time: what he said is not important, it’s how he is living that matters. You may find this hard to accept, but I think in this case Trump is not putting on a show; I think he is behaving according to how he actually feels. I am sure you will dispute this since you don’t give him credit for ever doing a genuine thing in his life. --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been crystal clear as to why it fails PAG, as has MrX. And we have both done so more than once. Wanna talk David Duke now and Charlottesville and Gary Cohn"s rebuke? Also relevant to religion. SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Apprentice - I removed a newly added paragraph about the show's ratings

Just documenting that I "challenged" (i.e. removed) a newly added paragraph about the show's ratings. We have several other discussions going on here about how to reduce the size of that section. IMO the ratings are unnecessary trivia unneeded in this biography. Bringing it here for discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove - based on my comment above which I posted before I saw this discussion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep - obviously, since it was me who added it. It shows that the show was on it last legs, not – as Trump claimed – the #1 hit until Schwarzenegger took over. Just another Trump myth/falsehood/{l-word we're not supposed to use). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually not according to Business Insider - Trump was correct. Regardless, it's not about ratings - it's about world-wide (encyclopedic) appeal, not about proving Trump wrong for whatever reason. When POV enters the picture, it's the project that suffers the results. Facts only, please. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep We have no choice. NPOV means we need objective data. Since RS now question just about everything POTUS has ever said or done, we need to find credible independent sources for as much as possible of this article. There's still too much in the article that would sound no different if it were written by the White House Press Office. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Remove per MelanieN. Not appropriate for this article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove unnecessary, more suited for The Apprentice (U.S. TV series). PackMecEng (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove - Flagging ratings are not biographically significant. ALL television shows have flagging ratings. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove this is irrelevant at this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove – No significant relevance to Trump's bio. — JFG ^talk 06:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Donald J. Trump

Should we note that Trump stylizes his own name as Donald J. Trump in the lead of the article? It is pretty ubiquitous. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting Point. It's like Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, but not many others over the past 100 years. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Per consensus 12 [45] the title of the article is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. He does sign his name “Donald J. Trump,” but sources overwhelmingly refer to him as Donald Trump. That was their practice both before and after he became president. (For that matter I sign my name including my middle initial, but that's the only time it's ever used. It's not part of what Wikipedia would call my Common Name.) It’s not like John F. Kennedy or Franklin D. Roosevelt who were commonly referred to with the initial. Still, I’m not sure I understand what you are suggesting. What wording are you suggesting to add? --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Wikipedia general practice on this sort of thing is, but I was thinking of changing the opening paragraph to something like "Donald John Trump (self-stylized as Donald J. Trump, born June 14, 1946)...", if the consensus is to keep the title of the article as it is, or something similar. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It is unimportant. I'd say leave it out. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it's unimportant. Lots of people (including myself) include their middle initial in their signature. It's rather meaningless and doesn't deserve to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest nothing, just laying out the comparisons. He seems to call himself "J" but nobody else does, fwiw. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per #Current consensus #17. I'm not aware that the first sentence of an article should indicate how the subject self-stylizes, when that's the only significant use of the style. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it would stay Donald Trump unless he has made a point of having people use the J. Per WP:NCBIO, WP:INITS seem to apply, and WP:SPNC. The names or labels for Bio pages and BLP seem to try and respect what the person identifies as, though I think this topic appears more often for cases like Chelsea Manning or the artist formerly known as Prince. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not actually paying respect to them, but referring to them in the same way that reliable sources do. I don't think that how Trump refers to himself is significant, because reliable sources do not comment on it. I find it more interesting that he refers to himself in the third person.[46] TFD (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment If we are going to add this, we should also add that Trump constantly refers to himself in the third person. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: You raise an interesting connection with Trump's third-person habit. This seems also to relate to his multiple personalities, e.g. John Baron, the public relations rep persona that Trump cooked up to tout himself to the New York media in his real estate days. Considering this connection, I now think that a section or a couple of sentences in the Public Image section should mention this highly unusual and characteristic behavior of Trump over an extended period of time. It is widely reported and well-sourced: [47][48][49] SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I raised the "third person" issue. Somehow, TFD's later comment got place before mine. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. Well I now think we should have some text about this in the article. It relates to the theme of "false or misleading" and maybe to some other themes we have yet to fully develop. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this might be mentioned in the infobox somehow to clarify his signature, but it's not worth mentioning in the overly-long lead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Procedural comments

unhelpful side discussion, and starting to get personal. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per Mandruss above - see Current consensus #17 at the top of this page - so unless someone intends to call an RfC to change current consensus, we can hat or archive this discussion. Atsme📞📧 16:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Atsme that consensus list relates to article edits, not to talk page discussion. And the last thing we want is more polls and RfC's with pre-emptive wording selected for first-mover advantage. Discussion is AOK. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Disagree that the consensus list does not relate to talk page discussion. If it relates to article edits, it relates to talk page discussion by extension (talk page discussion is limited to potential article improvements). ―Mandruss ☎ 18:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Mandruss, it doesn't mean consensus can't change, it just means an edit away from consensus can be quick reverted. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC) SPECIFICO, I didn't say it means that. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Ha and I didn't say you said that. But without discussion I said we'd be jumping to RfC's which is not good practice for collaborative investigation of complex content and sourcing issues. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC) We can choose not to revisit settled issues without compelling reason to do so. There is no requirement to revisit something every time a new editor happens by who was not aware of the prior discussions. That is one of the values of the list as pertains to article talk. This issue is so important that, despite the first sentence being the most visible part of the entire article, it has occurred to nobody in the many months that sentence has been in place. Now an editor unaware of the article history drops by and the issue suddenly needs discussing? Not in my book, hence #17. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC) I don't think "we" longer term editors can choose not to allow newbies to open discussion of issues. We routinely direct them to the talk archive. If we cannot all agree on what procedures go with that list, we'd better get rid of it entirely. Where is it documented? Who started "the list" and under what expectations or rules? I don't know, do you? SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC) That's a lot of questions and I won't try to respond to them point-by-point. As you know, much of accepted best practice is not written, simply because it would be completely impractical to do so. As for the part about getting rid of the list, I'm not aware of any such sentiment aside from yours, which makes you a minority of 1 as to process—again. Editors have not opposed the existence of the list even when it would have served their interest to do so. The rest of us are not required to satisfy one solitary editor's demands for explicit documentation and rules, which would be a neverending source of wikilawyering ammunition for those so inclined. Much care has been taken to protect the integrity of that list, thereby preventing it from becoming just another battleground, which is precisely why it has survived this long. The clear unspoken consensus, unless many opposing editors are keeping their objections to themselves for some reason, is that the list is a net positive at this article, and that no need for written rules has been shown. I have asked you to propose changes to established process separately, and to offer workable and specific better alternatives (difficult) rather than merely criticizing the status quo (easy). I'm asking you again. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Yes, "the list" is a "net positive". But it does not obviate discussion. You are saying "We can choose not to revisit settled issues without compelling reason to do so. There is no requirement to revisit something every time a new editor happens by who was not aware of the prior discussions. That is one of the values of the list as pertains to article talk." The burden is on the so-called "new editor" to get up to speed on past discussions as well as the outcomes of RfCs, as that represents current consensus. But beyond that, their voice eventually has to be heard, which in turn calls for a valid and respectful verbal response. No one is dismissed on the basis that Current consensus disagrees with them. Bus stop (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Mandruss—what if that new editor happens to be Jimbo Wales? You are saying "We can choose not to revisit settled issues without compelling reason to do so. There is no requirement to revisit something every time a new editor happens by who was not aware of the prior discussions. That is one of the values of the list as pertains to article talk." That is an untenable position to take. What is a "new editor"? Aside from Jimbo Wales there are many editors whose opinions are respected and highly valued. The Current consensus list does not, in my opinion, obviate all discussion. The "current consensus" is just that. It is a quick reference to past RfCs and it shows what current consensus is on a given issue. It tends to shift the burden to that "new editor" to familiarize themselves with the issues that have already been discussed. But we can never take the attitude that input from editors unfamiliar with past discussions are unwelcome. The input from such editors cannot be summarily dismissed just because it is contrary to past consensus. I think there is a requirement for engaging in verbal discussion with any good faith editor no matter the position they take on any issue. A nonresponse gives the appearance of acquiescence. Bus stop (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC) I've stated my opinion, which you have distorted, and it's only one opinion. You've stated yours, which is only one other opinion. I'm not going to enter into one of your trademark interminable, WP:SATISFY-violating "debates", from which the only way out is nonresponse. No "acquiesence" is implied. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC) You are stating (I'm paraphrasing, obviously) that we should tell newcomers to the article that their issue has already been addressed and resolved and there is nothing further to discuss, and you are saying that we simply refer them to the Current consensus list. In my opinion that is not a good idea as it relates to collaborative editing. The current consensus list is a resource. Yes, they should be referred to past discussion. But it doesn't end there. If they choose to pursue the matter further, as long as it is a good faith effort to improve the article, the discussion should indeed continue. They have the burden of catching up. If it is clear that they are unfamiliar with past talking points and arguments, then and only then can we say that this issue has already been resolved. Bus stop (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC) The Current Consensus item is not a reason to close this discussion. The Current Consensus is about the title of the article. This discussion is about whether to comment, somewhere in the lede, about how he signs his name. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Oops, my mistake. I had earlier mentioned current consensus #12, about the name of the article. But you all are talking about #17, about how the lede should read. I think it's fair to discuss; even if we can't touch the lede sentence, we might develop a consensus to put this detail somewhere else. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Or we could reach a new consensus. @Mandruss:: The reason nobody's voiced this concern before is that nobody before today tried to use "the list" as a hammer to shut down editor discussion on the talk page. Consensus can change. Especially in an article with developing news and new sources every day. As I've said before these articles will never be as stable as articles about historic or settled scientific subject matter. SPECIFICO talk 00:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC) I've already stated that my opinion is only one opinion, and you know damn well that I am the last person to believe I have the power to "shut down" anything. Save the inflammatory and combative hyperbole. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Nothing personal at all. I just said your idea doesn't work. You work. Your idea not so much. 😘 SPECIFICO talk 00:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Thank you for your just one opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – Very few RS use the middle initial. Certainly it can be used in some formal contexts, but that does not make it significant. Prior presidents cited (JFK, FDR) used the middle initial consistently as part of their identity, and that gave notoriety to their three-letter acronyms. I don't see a surge of "DJT" usage emerging; to most people he's known as "Trump". — JFG ^talk 06:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump/Rodman image

The longstanding Trump/Rodman image was removed and the removal was challenged by reversion. The subsequent vio of ArbCom restrictions was self-reverted. Seeking consensus to remove the image.

• Remove - Image adds no information except what Dennis Rodman looks like standing next to Trump, which has no relevance to this article. The article contains plenty of other images of a middle-aged Trump, and Wikipedia articles are not photo albums. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove - Waste of space in a lengthy article. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, WP:NOTFACEBOOK, and WP:NOTINSTAGRAM.- MrX 🖋 20:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove per MrX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep because it reminds everyone who Trump likes to hang out with. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Actually, remove because I'm not being serious at all. Well, maybe slightly serious. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Regarding his tenure on The Apprentice, Dennis Rodman and Omarosa are the most relevant contestants in light of his White House tenure. I think the picture is reasonable to include here. I'm not sure what other image would illustrate his tenure; screencaps of the TV show would be under copyright and are unlikely to have a Fair Use rationale. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove - adds nothing. I'd probably support a picture with Trump, Kim & Dennis in the same photo...showing graduated heights. 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ha. Meaningless unless they all remove their shoes. 😊 ―Mandruss ☎ 01:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Remove. Enough said. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep to illustrate The Celebrity Apprentice. Generally speaking, improving our choice of pictures, and having one for each section, would help improve the article quality towards GA some day. I'd be OK with using a picture with Omarosa or some other notable contestant, but this one is fine. — JFG ^talk 06:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• to illustrate The Celebrity Apprentice - Right, except that it does not illustrate that; rather, it decorates the section about that, illustrating Donald Trump and Dennis Rodman standing together in some unidentifiable hallway. As I said above, it conveys nothing new except what Rodman looks like, and the section is not about Rodman. WP:GACR, the GA criteria, states that "A good article is ... Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio." The article already satisfies that criterion without an image for every section, and there is no suggestion or indication that an image for every section would improve its GA chances. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Kim Jong Un photo

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.

---

I can see what the Left is trying to do... put a photo of Trump shaking the hands of a murderous dictator (Kim Jong Un) so that the masses are subliminally persuaded that Trump is a dictator. Remove this garbage! Because this is sectarian rubbish 101.183.21.131 (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not see that at all. The setting is perfectly framed. Flags of both countries are symmetrically arranged. The two face each other as equals. There is no suggestion that I can see of Trump being portrayed as a dictator. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather have a photo from the Singapore summit where Trump and Kim are facing the camera, but I don't feel the photo is subliminally offensive and see no reason to remove it unless there's consensus for some other image. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Since this photo has been heavily promoted by the White House, it's hard to imagine that there is anything offensive about it or that it somehow promotes an anti-Trump message. Eye of the beholder, apparently. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

OP's argument is not policy-based. Concur with MelanieN et al. I see what the Right is trying to do, stuffing the article with images of Trump smiling to make him look like a nice, amiable guy. That BS bias argument cuts both ways, which is why competent editors refrain from it and should not tolerate it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This IP's contributions to the encyclopedia seem to be focused on trolling talk pages.[50][51][52] Let's just ignore this rant. — JFG ^talk 06:29, 18 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.

Trump administration and the family separation policy

I think we need a brief paragraph about Trump administration family separation policy, probably under Presidency>Domestic policy>Immigration. The great southern border wall has disappeared from the zeitgeist, replaced by images of children separated from their parents—some lost in the system, some in cages, others wrapped in foil like baked potatoes[53]. Thoughts?- MrX 🖋 11:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe in the Presidency article though it would allow us to clear up some points such as "On Sunday, the facility was holding 751 family members and 258 youth. The facility was divided into separate wings: one for unaccompanied children, one for adults, and one for mothers and fathers with children." from your new link above. Why does anyone think the children are separated? If a person is violating federal law and returning illegally after being deported, then they are subject to felony prosecution and children cannot be housed with adults facing such prosecution. Also...baked potatoes? Ever see a space blanket?--MONGO 11:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"The Trump administration said on Friday that it had separated 1,995 children from parents facing criminal prosecution for unlawfully crossing the border over a six-week period that ended last month, as President Trump sought to shift blame for the widely criticized practice that has become the signature policy of his aggressive immigration agenda."
— The New York Times

"Mrs. [Laura] Bush, the last Republican first lady, spoke out forcefully against the practice on Sunday in a rare foray into domestic politics, comparing it to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II."
— The New York Times

"Inside a converted Walmart Supercenter about 6 miles from the U.S. border with Mexico, nearly 1,500 young immigrant boys have found their first home in the U.S.The shelter for immigrant youth in the corner of South Texas opened last year with a capacity of about 1,200. It expanded last month and had fewer than 50 beds to spare on Wednesday afternoon."
— The Wall Street Journal

"Amid the criticism, Kirstjen Nielsen, head of the Department of Homeland Security, slammed the media on Sunday, tweeting “We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period."
— Fox News

"“We don’t want kids to be separated from their parents,” House speaker Paul Ryan said on Thursday."
— National Review

"Trump has falsely blamed the separations on a law he said was written by Democrats. But the separations instead largely stem from a "zero-tolerance" policy announced with fanfare last month by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. "
— Chicago Tribune

"The signs of splintering of GOP support come after longtime Trump ally, the Rev. Franklin Graham, called the policy “disgraceful.” "
— Time

"A new House Republican bill that supporters claimed would end the White House's new policy of separating children from parents at the border would not actually halt the policy, experts told NBC News."
— NBC News

- MrX 🖋 12:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course they're separated. Even Kellyanne Conway used this language. O3000 (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes they are...and this belongs in the Presidency article if anywhere. As DHS chief Nielsen said "this is not policy" (to separate children from their parents) its just an end result of the zero tolerance policy as opposed to the ineffective catch and release policy. You cannot house minors with adults facing felony prosecution.MONGO 12:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand the distinction between policy and end result of a recent policy. Definitely belongs in the presidency article. Probably requires a sentence or two here as immigration is discussed in this article. O3000 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not new at all...the press just seized it for headlines. Did everyone forget that in 2014 we had unaccompanied minors housed in chain linked fenced areas in abandoned warehouses and had foil (space blankets) issued? As show here? If laws are broken even by US citizens, does anyone think the children will await trial or serve out period of incarceration along with their parents? Children even then are placed in foster care if no adult relative can care for the child.MONGO 12:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, blaming it on the press is unconvincing. We use RS, and coverage is extensive. Even two Republican presidential wives have provided unsolicited comments. O3000 (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can we please stop blaming sources for reporting significant news? Also, can we stay focused on noteworthy content for this article, not past president's articles? Thanks. - MrX 🖋 12:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discuss the politics of and media spin of the whole thing at the presidential page where it would be appropriate to quibble about it. The issue barely deserves a mention in this article and certainly shouldn't take up so many bytes here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The ongoing pattern of racial, religious, and ethnic discrimination and political pandering to white separatists and other elements of Trump's political "base" is a key fact of his life. It has long roots and has been extensively discussed by RS. This biography needs to reflect these RS facts and narratives about him. This article is full of trivia and Trump media posturing, but it fails to present a coherent NPOV picture of its subject. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) above in another thread (Personal attack removed) and are now lecturing on religious and other discrimination. Priceless. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks and stop derailing discussions with this childish hair pulling.- MrX 🖋 13:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

media spin If you have a problem with RS, take it to RS/N. O3000 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discuss content, not editors.- MrX 🖋 14:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SPECIFICO, don't remove comments you dislike and dishonestly refer to them as personal attacks just so you can get around policy on WP:TPG. Did you, or did you not, write the following with zero explanation and no qualification? "the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support" If anyone else had written it, say for instance someone you perceive to be Conservative/Republican/Libertarian, you would have been all over them, taking them to AN/I or probably submitting an Arb enforcement request, demanding they be blocked - probably indefinitely. The truth is, what you wrote is anti-Semitic in nature. Now, if you did it without realizing how it would be seen as an insensitive racial slur, I can accept that. But you have not once said you made a mistake in posting it without further explanation. You've only made reference to where the terminology comes from - and in my book, that's not good enough. Why? Because I know you and several others who follow your lead would be having a heyday over anyone in the group you see as your wiki-enemies writing the exact same thing. This is the last time I will mention this incident on this talk page, but it's not the last time I'm going to mention it altogether. If you admit your error and sincerely apologize for offending with what you wrote, that would go a long way toward making this right. Deleting talk page comments as personal attacks, though... that's not the right way to deal with those very offensive comments. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a diff to that? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the DIFF. I am shocked that it's still there and shocked that SPECIFICO didn't apologize. Here is the diff and I would hope that SPECIFICO's "allies" would repudiate that post. In my opinion, that comment is block worthy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm—I'm sure it's being discussed there as well. Can you cite any policy-based reasons for not wanting to include a significant Trump policy in this Trump article, keeping in mind that this article already includes policy material on energy, climate, deregulation, Cuba(?!), Iran, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Afghanistan, ISIS, Syria, Tax cuts, Keystone XL, border wall, DACA, NAFTA, TPP, WTO, LMNOP...? Phew! sorry, I ran out of breath there.- MrX 🖋 13:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The reliable sources also indicate this is not new and is not policy. The only difference is the Trump administration is upholding federal law and the previous ones did not. Wording would have to include something along the lines of "a more rigorous enforcement of federal immigration laws led to an increase in family separations which were criticized by both Democrats and Republicans." I think even that would belong in the Presidency article but it would reflect the facts as well as sources since this is not a new thing, just an escalation.MONGO 13:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You haven't cited a single reliable source to support your argument; I've cited eight. This enhanced enforcement has been compared to Japanese internment during WWII (the big one). That's the important takeaway, not some diversion about upholding federal law.- MrX 🖋 13:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX one of your own sources, that of the DHS chief speaking where she said this is Not Policy you forget that one? I did cite the CNN story from 2014 or did you not see it?MONGO 14:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That’s simply a claim by the administration. O3000 (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

And ironically, it's a claim by the same person who testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee trying to provide cover for Trump during shithole-gate.[54][55] She is not credible. - MrX 🖋 14:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Associated Press:[56] "This pressure is coming as White House officials have tried to distance themselves from the policy. Trump blames Democrats falsely for the situation. The administration put the policy in place and could easily end it after it has led to a spike in cases of split and distraught families." zzz (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"The reliable sources also indicate this is not new and is not policy." Utterly false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Not new. See 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

Not Trump Administration policy. Happened during Clinton and then Bush.

The Trump Administration policy is merely to enforce the law still and currently in place. If legislators don't like the law, they have the power, collectively, to change it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

OR/SYNTH. Let's use RS. O3000 (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't confuse laws with (enforcement) policies. They are different. As I cited from the Chicago Tribune, "Trump has falsely blamed the separations on a law he said was written by Democrats." - MrX 🖋 13:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

When any adminstration other than the Trump’s does anything the media portrays as negative, the reasons for exclusion resonate except as it applies to Trump. How can anyone not see that bias is a factor? Why does this remind me of the Comey double-standard? Laws are laws - enforcement of those laws has obviously become politicized and sensationalized by clickbait media, most of which are proven to be 90% negative toward Trump. Ironically, some of the very same media who attempted to circulate images of children in fenced cages, blamed Trump when the images were actually from the Obama administration. Nancy Pelosi is heading south to check out the conditions asylum seekers are being housed. It’s about time - maybe Congress will enact new immigration laws as a result. In the interim, enough already with the back and forth here, all of which is based on biased media reporting to appeal to human compassion (more like propaganda), none of which to date is supported by factual evidence- and none of it focused on the current law - which is an enumerated power granted only to Congress and the responsibility of the departments within the (DOJ) to enforce. For Pete’s sake, some of top members of the DOJ are currently under criminal investigation, and Trump is taking the rap for that, too. If he tries to do to correct the problems within the DOJ, his efforts will likely be sensationalized negatively by the media as interference with the Russian collusion investigation. What a freaking mess!! Bottomline, if we do include any of this material, it has to be in a dispassionate tone, avoiding SOAPBOX by basing it entirely on the facts - not opinions - and with careful adherence to NPOV, particularly WEIGHT & BALANCE. Yes, from a human perspective it is sad, NO it is not Trump’s fault - they are the results of laws passed by Congress and signed into law by prior presidents. Material about immigration belongs in a US immigration article - not in the Trump bio simply because the biased media wants to blame Trump for everything, including the mistakes of prior admins. Oh, and ask yourselves honestly if we allow such material in the Trump BLP, are we going to include the related information in the Bush & Obama administrations, considering they should be considered equally at fault? If the answer to that question is no, then leave it out of this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)