Talk:Donald Trump

Open RfCs and surveys

• #RfC: "useful fool"

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016)

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: "useful fool"

Should Trump's main biography include the phrase:

Both Michael Hayden and Michael Morell have expressed their belief that Trump is a "useful fool...manipulated by Moscow" and an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation".

References

For context, please see the above discussion, whereby this phrase was recently added,[1] removed[2] and inserted again.[3] — JFG ^talk 10:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose – Calling the President of the United States a "useful fool" and an "unwitting agent of Russia" is a BLP smear. The sentence reports opinions by two former intelligence officers, expressed in November 2016, shortly after before Trump's election. There is no particular notability for those opinions today. They are appropriate to cite, in context, in the article on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (they are in the section about reactions of the intelligence community), but they have WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in the subject's main biography. — JFG ^talk 10:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's not name calling, but an intelligence-based "benign" description of the factual state of affairs. See the full quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:BLP, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SPECIFICO – Op-ed pieces are not subject to normal fact-checking or editorial oversight. If it is uncontested that Trump is an "unwitting agent", it should be easy to find multiple reliable, secondary sources to support the claim. In the material, it is not clear from the context that Hayden is citing Morell and it is not even verifiable that Hayden and Morell have used both expressions. Politrukki (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the same reasons; you've said it best. This content runs contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is not being said in Wikipedia's voice, it is an opinion properly attributed to respected intelligence veterans, a former director of the NSA and a former deputy director of the CIA, respectively. This was discussed above at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 75#Removal_of_RS_content, where consensus was found to restore the material reverted by JFG. TheValeyard (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. They are highly significant opinions by two men who know more about this than anyone, and their veracity is borne out by recent events: Trump refuses to criticize Putin or Russia, admit that Russia interfered in the election, refuses to take action to protect the American election system from ongoing Russian hacking and meddling, even not using the money assigned by Congress for the State Dept. to use for that purpose, and does not enforce the sanctions against Russian (the sanctions he is allegedly promised $11 billion for lifting). (As noted on the news, we now have two people whom Trump will not criticize: Putin and Stormy Daniels.) Suspicions regarding the veracity of allegations that he is being blackmailed by Russia are strengthened by all these events. For full context and an improved version, see this section above: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 75#Removal of RS content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Largely undue for main BLP. Two former Obama officials opinion on an opposition candidate days before the election does not help it's weight either. Also since all the cool kids are doing it, Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 75#Removal of RS content. Good luck finding anything useful in that mess of a thread. PackMecEng (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BLP. Both Hayden and Morell have a dubious reputation. Hayden lied under oath to Congress about torture [4], Morell lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq [5], [6]. @BullRangifer: Trump's anti-Russian remarks – [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As per all the above reasons given. Sad that we had to resort to an RfC for this when I thought it should be pretty obvious. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as the opinion of a few people; not sufficiently mainstream or widely held enough to include in this BLP. I notice that these two people are quoted with their opinion at the article Useful idiot which may be a better place for it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Just two old guys sittin' on a park bench? Who could have a more informed and considered and stonefaced an evaluation of the situation? SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's not name calling, but an intelligence-based "benign" description of the factual state of affairs. See the full quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• We could fill many books with analyses and descriptions, by various experts, of the factual state of affairs about Donald Trump. In this biography we need to focus on the ones that have gotten heavy, longstanding, significant coverage from multiple sources. There is such coverage about his relationship with Russia, and that issue is included in this biography. The particular analysis being discussed here - this particular name for his relationship to Russia - has not gotten that kind of coverage and should be excluded per WP:WEIGHT. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

But isn't this comment by intelligence experts (and there have also been others more recently) who have deep professional understanding of the nature Russian tactics to compromise "useful idiot" actors, a noteworthy indicator of the very widespread public discussion of the likelihood that Trump has been compromised by the Russians? It may turn out that there are more specific explanations of his behavior, but this is one that has been consistent and widespread for the past 20+ months. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If this particular "useful fool" tag actually was "very widespread" I would support including it. But it isn't. Once in a while someone brings it up, that's all. That specific "useful fool" tag, proposed for inclusion here, is a different matter from the more widespread speculation about why he is so deferential to the Russians - although I wouldn't support including that either, because speculation is just what it is. Nobody really knows why he acts as he does toward Russia: as an innocent dupe, or out of fear of something they "have on him", or as a conscious agent of their policies. The intelligence officers quoted here are part of that speculation, and their view has not become widely accepted. Maybe someday Robert Mueller will explain his motives to us with evidence; until then, educated guesses have no place here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN hit the nail on the head. Undue weight indeed 16 months later. — JFG ^talk 22:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Everyone seems to forget:

• BLP WP:PUBLICFIGURE: They don't get much protection: "Allegation...belongs in the article."

Use attribution.

• NPOV: Biased sources and opinions can be used. Failure to do so is censorship, also not allowed.

Personal opinions of editors has no bearing on this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because they have an opinion does not make that opinion notable. PackMecEng (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Content does not have to be notable, but since who said it are very notable, that counts FOR inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The notability, or not, of the people who said it is irrelevant. What matters is the WP:WEIGHT of coverage given to their comments by sources. That WEIGHT is lacking; they said it and pretty much nobody responded or commented. If this had become a widespread opinion, a "meme", a commonly expressed opinion, I would favor including it. That hasn't happened; they said it and that was pretty much the end of it. That's why I favor leaving it out. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support with additional context and addition of recent opinions of other national security professionals of both political parties who say the same thing. It is unprecedented for national security chiefs of any free country to make such a statement about a candidate or sitting head of state. These comments come from two men whose level of knowledge -- of Russian methods and of surrounding recent history -- is matched only by a handful of current officials who, as such, cannot publicly comment. There is no BLP policy concern and it's laughable to suggest that these comments are dishonest or politically motivated. All editors who !vote here should review the previous thread that overwhelmingly favored this text. Both the text and the references should be expanded after we wrap up this RfC next month. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons that should be obvious, but apparently aren't. It's not entirely clear that it's illegal for Trump to be a "useful fool", but the BLPCRIME guidelines regarding alleged crimes should still apply; accusations, even if the accusation is made by a notable person, generally shouldn't be included. Also there's never any shortage of people making allegations against high-profile political figures, these are generally excluded. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• On the contrary. Per BLP WP:PUBLICFIGURE we are supposed to include such allegations. They don't get much protection: "Allegation...belongs in the article." Just attribute them and label them as allegations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• If an allegation or incident is noteworthy - "the Russia thing" is noteworthy as a whole, but why are these noteworthy? We don't include Mitt Romney calling Donald Trump "a fraud" [19]. These are people acting as pundits (read: people who say outrageous things for publicity), not as representatives of the intelligence community. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• That's absurd. They are highly informed and "benign" (see full quote) descriptions of real danger. They aren't name calling either. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BLPCRIME is about a person who is involuntarily preyed upon and becomes known for a crime that had nothing to do with their own actions. That simply doesn't apply here. Could you explain the details as to how Trump's accomodating stance wrt Russia comports with the details of BLPCRIME? SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• You're right that BLPCRIME isn't relevant. I definitely recall some guideline regarding including accusations of this general type in biographies, I'll try to find it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• The policy is BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which says such allegations "should" be included. Public persons are not spared, and rarely a president. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• In general, most of these pages are about "notability", which isn't really relevant; the high-level topic of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is obviously not going to be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose — election period Opinion piece that is mis-paraphrased. Not noted then, Opinion piece is not acceptable RS, and the cite simply does not contain Morell saying anything about fool, so lacks WP:V. Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Both these men are career officials whose voices carry a lot of weight. They're both politically independent, they've served in various capacities under presidents of both main parties, and their resumes indicate they are supremely qualified to make this kind of determination. "Useful fool" (or "useful idiot"), while somewhat derogatory, is a well-used term in the security services for people who are unwittingly manipulated. In the context of the section it is contained in, it makes perfect sense to include this properly attributed content. That said, if it turns out that Trump has knowingly collaborated with the Russians (rather than being unwittingly manipulated), "useful fool" would be inaccurate and we could revisit this again. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – Until the outcome of this RfC, I have edited the text to mention that Hayden and Morell are former intelligence officials. Doesn't mean I condone the inclusion of their dated opinion, but at least it informs the reader. — JFG ^talk 17:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - NPOV applies here. This Russia thing is a major topic in the current administration. The sources are informed and reliable. The phrase itself refers to a specific character in an intelligence situation. It was not coined specifically for the current president, apt though it is. There is a long history of such characters being used in statecraft. --Pete (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - it goes hand-in-hand with all the other contentious labels supported by logical fallacies. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Puzzlement We're not dealing in logic, we're citing fact. They made the statement. Fact. Widely reported. Due weight. You could find a denial, if you'd like to add it. We could check Nixon's article and see "I am not a crook" -- and then we could check Tillerson who said "moron" and Gary Cohn who said I forget which synonym. Also Lara Trump, who called him a "retard." SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, now I get it - you're conflating facts with "belief", and apparently believe that everything a biased journalist writes is factual. Uhm, nope. They "expressed their belief", and the only fact in that statement is the fact they expressed a belief. Their belief is far from factual - it's opinion based on speculation because there are no facts to support their belief. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  (abstainer comment) - They are not the words of a biased journalist. That Hayden and Morell said these things is not in dispute and is as factual as anything gets in Wikipedia editing. There is no NPOV case against this attributed content, except possibly the WEIGHT and/or BALASP parts of NPOV. You don't appear to be making a WEIGHT or BALASP argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  That is your opinion...and let me be clear, what they said is not factual; rather it is their belief. Maybe the following will help: User_talk:Atsme/Archive_21#Opinions_vs_Facts ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  There is no proposal on the table to say that what Hayden and Morell said is factual. The proposal is to say that they said it. You clearly don't understand the all-important difference between wiki voice and attribution, and if you remain unconvinced I suggest you go to WP:VPP and ask editors there to explain this point to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Not everything that is published is worthy of inclusion in WP, and I consider the unsupported views of an opinionated op-ed contributor expressing their unsupported beliefs as one example of non-encyclopedic. I see it as noncompliant with WP:LABEL, WP:RECENTISM and WP:GOSSIP. We can agree to disagree as to what is factual information worthy of inclusion vs what gossip and unsupported speculation and partisan opinions should be included/excluded. Have a great day! ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  None of those things apply. RECENTISM is ridiculous. This Russia thing has been going since his candidacy and is pretty much the defining factor of his tenure. It's relevant and so too is input from reliable sources. --Pete (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  Just curious... why on earth you would consider RECENTISM ridiculous, Pete? For comparison purposes, let's look at the first year of Obama's tenure - did you predict the birther claims would pretty much be the "defining factor" of his tenure? What about the first year of Bush - 9-11? What about Clinton - were Lewinsky and impeachment the defining factors for his tenure? RECENTISM isn't all that ridiculous, now is it? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This Russia thing has been going on since 2016, and it has been a major media story on a daily basis since Day One of this administration. It is hardly a nine day wonder. Nor is it trivial. --Pete (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, much longer than that...the Russian thing dates back at least to 2014, possibly even earlier. Russian hackers (believed to be connected to Kremlin intelligence) hacked into the DNC network back in 2015...and yes, the administration at the time knew there was a problem...so you're right in that it wasn't a 9-day wonder; however, 9-day wonders are not what Recentism is all about. No more from my end - happy editing! ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - These are established figures, going on the record to express opinion about another established figure. Wikipedia is not here to make a judgement on the veracity, nor does the text do this. The statement as written is factually correct and there is no reasonable justification for removing it. ῤerspeκὖlὖm_(talk)(spy) 12:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It is a relevant piece of information. It is also correctly sourced and gives additional background to the topic since it directly links to the people behind these claims. Arcillaroja (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This sentence, while sourced (and undoubtedly well founded) sounds like part of an in depth and opinionated debate and is a part of an idea about trump as he is discussed by others. Its a speculation, which which may have come from an expert, but is not part of a summary of what the subject is and what he does As such this information would look out of place either in the lede or in his main biography, which should give a less detailed summary. At best this info might find a place in a section on foreign policies and specifically in a sub section about Russia. Edaham (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is reliably sourced and attributed to established figures but equally harsh comments are made by equally established people every day in the press and cable news. I fail to see how these comments are special in any way. Such comments should be included in BLP only if the commentary had a direct effect on his life or, as MelanieN says, their comments reflect mainstream belief.LM2000 (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I think there must be a more specialized article where this can be added, but I think it is WP:UNDUE for this article - this article has a lot of ground to cover and the standard for due weight needs to be a little higher.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Useful idiot is the more specialized article for this. Lorstaking (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose mostly for being unclear. It is well sourced but this opinion is always up for debate. Lorstaking (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Note, for the editors coming to this discussion the 1st time, see the previous discussion where consensus supported the restoration, Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 75#Removal_of_RS_content. TheValeyard (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to support this material with more than one source? Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the section referenced immediately above by TheValeyard contains a better version using two sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really. They list Washinton Post opinion section as the primary and NY Times opinion section as the only sources listed in the section discussing Michael Hayden or Michael Morell. With the pieces in question written by those two rather than reported on by others. PackMecEng (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Perfectly good sources for opinions by notable persons. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Pack, this is beyond noteworthy. It was historic. There has never been such a statement of concern by such senior national security or intelligence officials. This isn't Fox&Friends or Rachel Maddow speaking. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

But it is two people that worked in the Obama administration that just so happened to make these wild claims days before the election. Makes it hard to take their comments as anything past partisan. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

They also worked for previous GOP administrations. There is no evidence they were politically motivated. Context counts. They were receiving multiple intelligence reports from allied (even east bloc) nations warning that Trump's people were plotting with Russians to steal the election. There was also the active election interference, which Trump refused to acknowledge. So nothing political. They were patriotically warning of an unprecedented danger. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Pack, that's highly personal conclusion. But we can certainly add more recent statements by the many national security pro's -- including in sworn congressional testimony -- who express the same and related concerns. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Specifico. “Historic” claims call for support. Put up a couple cites SAYING that is historic to support that argument. How many said that word is how historic it is. Or accept that few or none in RS felt that it was historic. Markbassett (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Google "useful fool trump". I didn't say to put historic in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 04:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I was calling overblown the arguing of it as “historic”. Googling useful fool +historic see ... Zero RS say this opinion piece was historic, and without +historic seems not seen as very noteworthy either. Markbassett (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah but we could google "bunion historic" and it wouldn't come up either but we still have an article about bunions. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I got my first bunion last year. It was unprecedented, but that didn't make it historic. Hey, you started with the bunions. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think it should be temporarily removed while we discuss it. I was about to boldly do that, but I can't just yet, per the DS. As per discussion above I do intend to move the "Russia" section (where these quotes are cited) from the "Campaign" section to the "Presidency" section, because it cites some of his actions during his presidency, and I will do that now. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If Russia plays a big enough part in the life of Trump to have a paragraph in the lead, then I think Russia ought to be in the TOC. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

All that is really under #investigations section Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

More on senior intelligence professionals expressing alarm and derogation of Trump. [20] SPECIFICO talk

Stormy Daniels

I agree that as of right now the info does not belong in the lede. It surely belongs in the article however.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It`s spelled lead2602:306:BD95:45F0:1CC1:706A:52E3:7C6E (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

JFG clearly disagrees with what I added on Daniels - if it's not due here, where is it due then? starship.paint ~ KO 08:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: They use this little tactic, where if you put it into one article (say Donald Trump) they claim that it doesn't belong in that article but some other article. Then when you try to put it into another related article (say Donald Trump sexual allegations) they say it doesn't belong in that article but another, unspecified, article. It's like a little shell game. Anything controversial to do with Trump, we have to go through this inane process to get some actual info in. It's a way obstruct inclusion of reliably sourced text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Since the last discussion though, the White House via press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has admitted that there was an arbitration case won "in the President's favor" - which points to certainly something going on between Daniels and Trump, otherwise there would be nothing to arbitrate. Also a new development, Daniels is suing over the non-disclosure agreement, if there wasn't one, there would be nothing to sue about. Finally, remember the first smoking gun, Trump's lawyer admitted he paid $130,000 to Daniels but refused to say why. starship.paint ~ KO 08:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"The Stormy Daniels Affair" has been receiving significant and continuous coverage in the mainstream media (both old and new media) for quite a while now. The internet is littered with cast iron reliable sources discussing the matter. All are basically saying the same thing:

1. Trump probably had an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford).
2. Fearing the news would come out at a critical time of the election, he had his lawyer pay hush money to keep Clifford quiet.
3. Seeing an opportunity to raise her profile and make a bit of extra cabbage, Clifford drizzled a spoonful of detail over some eager media outlets.
4. Mainstream media got wind of Cohen's payment, forcing Cohen to contort himself into a ludicrous shape in order to try to protect his client (Trump).
5. Trump orders his Press Secretary to lie to the White House Press Corps (what else is new?) about a ridiculous "win" in arbitration.
6. Clifford's lawyer is on cable TV almost continuously.
7. As usual, it's no longer about the affair, but rather it is about the lying.

We can no longer pretend this isn't getting significant play in the mainstream media, so it absolutely belongs in this BLP in some form or another. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia should refrain from reporting recentist gossip, especially in high-profile articles on living persons. — JFG ^talk 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The ship sailed on "recentist gossip" years ago, it is verifiable (that's not to say the affair is true, per se, just that sources are covering it) and is a prominent section of Ms. Daniels' article, Stormy_Daniels#Alleged_affair_with_Donald_Trump. Dismissing it as a base conspiracy theory is beyond the pale. ValarianB (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Noting coverage on the current home page of that notorious gossip rag, The New York Times. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Still recentism, and yes still sensationalist gossip, no matter who prints it. And I said nothing about conspiracy theories. I would definitely support inclusion if/when something more tangible appears. WP:There is no deadline. — JFG ^talk 22:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we'd all be interested in a credible argument to keep this kind of stuff out of the article, JFG, but that ain't it. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have zero interest in getting involved in this article or talkpage, but I will make a general comment about site policy. WP:BLP specifically addresses this situation, in its section on "Public figures". The policy states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." It goes on to say, by way of example: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred." (emphasis mine).

  So this sort of material is described as appropriate for inclusion—in fact, it's a canonical example of appropriate material—in the WP:BLP policy. It's arguably a BLP violation to remove this material, since fundamental site policy so clearly supports inclusion. I'm concerned by the lack of policy awareness in some of the arguments here; among other basic matters, essays on recentism and deadlines don't supplant WP:BLP, which is a fundamental and non-negotiable site policy. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You are right that the BLP policy does not prevent us from mentioning these allegations, but it also does not obligate us to mention them. We still have to consider due weight in Trump's overall life story, and that can't be established as of yet. — JFG ^talk 22:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Please respond to the points MastCell made above. You've just repeated your POV. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JFG: the policy is hardly agnostic on the subject. It literally says that such material "belongs in the biography". (Where, and how broadly, to cover it are questions of WP:WEIGHT). You're contravening a clear statement of fundamental site policy, and it's not a good look. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A large number of sexual or "groping" affairs have been considered for inclusion in this bio and a consensus of editors has agreed to just briefly summarize them, while pointing to the main article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Some more serious allegations such as a rape case have been fully rejected from this article after extensive debate. So there is not hard and fast obligation for the biography to include an allegation just because it exists, nor to immediately reflect the latest scandal à la mode. That's why we are all here to discuss the case and make a collective determination, and I will most certainly respect any consensus that emerges. — JFG ^talk 23:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

So... you're saying we should include the Stormy Daniels stuff in the "sexual misconduct allegations" article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That would make sense. Strange it's not in there yet. — JFG ^talk 15:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to get sucked in any further here, but I'm concerned that moving the material to the "sexual misconduct allegations" article is inappropriate, and potentially a BLP issue. After all, there is no allegation of actual misconduct in this case—right? (I can't say I've followed the sources or editing here closely, so correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think anyone has suggested that anything non-consensual occurred, and the non-disclosure agreement was apparently legally dubious but not a form of "sexual misconduct". MastCell ^Talk 15:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, there was no sexual misconduct, just alleged adultery. starship.paint ~ KO 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Adultery is considered misconduct by a rather large proportion of society. The alleged misdeeds are not misconduct by Trump against the porn actress, but misconduct by both of them against Melania. — JFG ^talk 11:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• @JFG: - I agree with you. Adultery is misconduct, against Melania. But there was no sexual misconduct against Melania. University of Iowa: "Sexual misconduct is a broad term encompassing any unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that is committed without consent or by force, intimidation, coercion, or manipulation." It's maritial misconduct so it can't go in the sexual misconduct article. Unless you name that article to "sexual + marital" or "all misconduct". starship.paint ~ KO 13:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a valid reason not to include it there, ok. So where to put it? That story is currently in both articles Stormy Daniels and Trump's lawyer Michael Dean Cohen, plus briefly at Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti, looks good enough in the current state of reporting. Might also deserve a mention in Legal affairs of Donald Trump, given the recently opened suit and counter-suit. — JFG ^talk 13:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The whole detailed story can go to Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The allegation of the affair should go into Donald Trump, that's one sentence. Maybe another sentence of the $130,000 payment and non-disclosure agreement, that would make it two sentences in the main article. starship.paint ~ KO 03:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The significant factor is that POTUS and his counsel apparently believed that Trump was compromised by some aspect of this incident. The significance is that a candidate and now elected official apparently was vulnerable to blackmail. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with others that this material should be included in the article, but not the lead (not yet; possibly later). This is well-publicised matter that is directly relevant to Trump's bio. In fact, to leave this material out would tend to tilt the article's neutral stance. Casually dismissing it as "sensationalist gossip" is not much different that declaring IDONTLIKEIT.- MrX 🖋 23:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it belongs in the lede unless it actually sinks his Presidency (just don't see that happening). He's had an affair with Marples before and none of his family are in the lede. starship.paint ~ KO 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• At this point, one just ignores the editor who's entry into the discussion is directly contradicted by policy, as shown above. We should work out a paragraph here before inclusion. TheValeyard (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Somebody should just go ahead and be WP:BOLD.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

For a controversial issue at an article under the ArbCom remedies, there is little point. After the one inevitable revert, we're back here seeking consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is, we already had it, two more supports below to pile on as well. If the holdout reverts, you send them to the enforcement page. TheValeyard (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I was reading too precisely. An edit with consensus is not a BOLD, by definition of BOLD. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per MastCell's clear analysis. I too am reluctant to delve deeply into the 24/7/365 Trump world on Wikipedia, but the policy based reasons for including this content are so strong at this point that I must comment in favor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. There are no BLP problems nor would it being a BLP mean we reduce or remove that coverage, as pointed out above, because of how public a figure Trump is. This is has been coverage extensively, far more than say the rape case. NPOV doesn't have a thou can ignore WEIGHT in highly reliable sources if what they print is "gossip". I think there is consensus to at-least restore this, though I'll wait. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment In this case, where we have a single editor denying WP site policy and deflecting any attempts to engage in discussion, there is clearly consensus to include. So if any text is reverted, it can immediately be reinstated per current consensus. I don't believe the DS are intended to prevent reinserting evident consensus that a single editor chooses to deny. SPECIFICO talk 13:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  Don't edit war though. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Galobtter and others, but I don't see any reason to push something this controversial to the article after only 36 hours of discussion. One or two editors need to chill and stop picking fights.
  I would be more likely to Oppose in this article if there were another article where this would fit. It has already been established by clear consensus that it doesn't belong in an article titled "sexual misconduct allegations" because no sexual misconduct is alleged.
  I'll also comment that I find the phrase "pornographic actress" linguistically offensive, as it says she is an actress who is pornographic. The better phrase would be "pornography actress", but I guess we're stuck with the bad one since it's all over Wikipedia content and even some reliable sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: - how about "porn actress" starship.paint ~ KO 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Too slangy for Wikipedia, imo. Actually my first choice would be adult film actress, as it avoids some stigma without violating MOS:EUPHEMISM in my view. Readers who are unfamiliar with the term "adult film" would have to remain uninformed about the nature of her films (which is of secondary importance) or be enlightened by the wikilink, and I could live with either.
  But pornography actress would be an improvement over pornographic actress—it's the films that are pornographic, not the actors in them. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Does the label matter really? What about "nude model" or just "actress"? The issue is blackmail -- not her profession. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  RS say it matters. Find me one source that doesn't mention that she's a porn star. "Nude model" is more often code for prostitute than for porn star, and we should avoid codes anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Code? OMG how do you know all these twists and turns of phrase? I guess we'll have to take your word for it. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Obviously a fine upstanding gentleman such as myself doesn't have any firsthand experience in these areas. I read a lot. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This is just more of the depraved Hollywood media culture. The Americans get what they deserve, both the good and the bad, but mercy on their souls in the hereafter. (Just thinking of Rex and Hope Hicks today.) SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include, briefly. The suggestion to put it in the "Legal issues" section is a good one - even though that is a subsection of Business activities. As pointed out, it doesn't belong under "Sexual misconduct"; there is no sexual misconduct on his part alleged here, since she says the affair was consensual. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Especially on his part, according to her. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:WEIGHT. It should be included, briefly, in the "Legal issues" section. As far as terminology goes, pornographic film actress (article) or adult film actress (redirect to the same article) would work. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  "adult film actress" is okay with me, that's what Mandruss proposed also. starship.paint ~ KO 03:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Gossip and partisan character-assassination has 0 place in the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Zigzig20s: Not in the lede, but in the body. Presence of a lawsuit rules out gossip, Trump's lawyer admitting he paid $130,000 rules out partisan character assassination, also there was an arbitration case supposedly resolved "in the President’s favor", so there is definitely something going on. Read Stormy Daniels for the details. starship.paint ~ KO 03:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: Don't bother, we've seen this before. To a few editors, anything Trump-negative short of a court conviction is gossip and partisan character-assassination. It matters not to these editors that that is clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia content policy, so you're wasting your "breath". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ping didn't work, if something is clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia content policy, it should be easily refuted though. starship.paint ~ KO 09:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose-ish - not really a RFC here, but until debate turns from what was "apparently believed" or "apparently blackmail" to actual article text proposals based on cites, I'll suggest restraint is in order. BLP lead says it "must" be written conservatively and WP:PUBLICFIGURE says avoid inflammatory labels, so caution or restraint on sexy sensationalism seems in order rather than a stampede to insert something instantly. Asking for carte blanche to insert unknown text seems likely to lead to a revert and coming back for a RFC. Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: - this is the most basic detail. It is conservative. Would you agree with this? starship.paint ~ KO 03:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint Thanks, glad to discuss actual proposal. The line "Trump is alleged to have had a extramarital affair with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels in 2006, months after Barron was born." with cites to BBC and CBB seems close textually, though the Family section seems not the right place and it still faces the JFG objection of Undue in his BLP. (I take that to mean he sees it as it happened 12 years ago and made no noticeable effect on his life. This compares to the Marla Maples affair got less text although it led to a divorce, marriage, and daughter -- and that the Access Hollywood tapes got a couple mentions for the role that played in the debate and the sexual misconduct allegations.) Markbassett (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Does it need a divorce, marriage or daughter to be relevant? Under WP:BLP there is WP:PUBLICFIGURE, with a clear example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. There is a public scandal, multiple major newspapers publish the allegations. This man is the most public figure in the world. starship.paint ~ KO 06:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That does not actually establish weight though. Though at this point I think coverage has gone far enough that it might be warranted, just not with the current phrasing or location as cited above. PackMecEng (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint Any of those life events would make it biographically significant -- something this story lacks. As to the example you state, note the guidance is actually the line above -- first it has to get past "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented". And whether this is actually what JFG mean by UNDUE is just my speculation. He may instead have meant that it's not accumulated a lot of weight as compared to items such as the tapes during the campaign or the Russian bits ... it's a 2011 story about 2006 that resurfaced in 2018 and is getting coverage this month but "covfefe' got more than that ... a month in the news is not a lot for this individual. Or JFG may have meant that it's got it's own article and is involved in two others and so it is already covered in those breakouts from his bio, or that this really isn't the bin for it. If it is to go here, does that mean a merge and delete there ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you are arguing. It's relevant because it's a sex scandal [21] [22] [23] and he is the most prominent politician on the planet. I don't know where you really are advocating for this to be put, and I don't know if this has its own article. starship.paint ~ KO 14:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Paeans to JFG belong in his bio article, at such time it's written. Meanwhile, we have the POTUS subject to blackmail, suspected of a campaign finance violation, frivolous and vexatious litigation, and other matters relating to him personally, to his business, and to his campaign. And we're supposed to conclude this stuff doesn't belong in his bio article while we enshrine Dr. Jackson's media song and dance about POTUS recognized a hippo on the elephant-hippo spectrum? Oh. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• We have consensus among both talk page regulars, article newcomers, and two respected uninvolved WP veterans. Now, let's put the "JFG objection" in the thankyouverymuch file and go ahead with the article text on this. Not in the lead yet, but clearly in the BLP. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO Bad count, bad idea - your accuracy misses four editors saying against or maybe later, and shouting 'I am right' 'onlyone' 'nownownow' seems unlikely to be helpful. So I think we can ignore that last and hopefully focus more on what words and where and maybe somebody will actually discuss with JFG et al the objections and ways to address them instead of shouting them down ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

[24] [25]. Half a dozen folks have tried to discuss with JFG, but from all indications, he just repeats no. Surely you don't think citing policy to him on a talk page is shouting him down. It would be his choice whether to engage. Otherwise, we move on. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support, per User:MastCell and others. Our BLP policy requires inclusion: "The allegation belongs in the biography." As the most WP:PUBLICFIGURE, he gets the least protection, not just in real life, but also according to our BLP policy. There are abundant very RS which cover this. The allegation doesn't have to be true. It exists and is documented. We are obligated to include it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: User:Mandruss is a prophet -- "After the one inevitable revert, we're back here" -- someone ran and made an edit (not the previously shown language) into the Legal affairs section and... I just reverted it as a topic with TALK in progress and not a clear consensus on what to do as yet. We're back here, for the moment, will see if the text is brought in for discussion. Markbassett (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

11 in favor with 2 opposing looks like a pretty clear consensus to me. It seems to me that your revert was against consensus, but let see what others have to say.- MrX 🖋 00:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

user:MrX Thank you for a vote count that at least was not voicing "just one", and I note your count is of editors other than the original Starship and JFG. I'll also note four were reluctant or for going slow/brief (Cullen, Mandruss, Melanie, KE) and one was for single line (Galob) so note this was indicating more discussion. Also see the text put in discussion was a single line -- which was not what appeared. Feels like there is approval for at least one line, text TBD, not yet out of discussion and now into next section. (Which would be great except its already OBE edits in the article ...) Markbassett (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per everyone above ...... the whole thing has been well documented not only by well respected news sources but also well respected tv stations around the globe, Regardless of what one thinks about it all as I said it's well documented and as such should be in the article. –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per MastCell and others. Place in Legal issues section and call her an adult film actress. Gandydancer (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per MastCall. There are now allegations of physical threats. I don’t think that should be included, at least as yet. O3000 (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• @MONGO, JFG, Zigzig20s, and Markbassett: - Trump (through his lawyer) just made this whole story far more notable. Trump is suing Daniels for $20 million for breaking the non-disclosure agreement 20 times. If there was ever any doubt that this is relevant, it's gone. This is important enough for $20 million, as determined by Trump and his associates. This confirms the NDA between Trump and Daniels and indirectly confirms that something happened involving both of them. starship.paint ~ KO 09:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Starship.paint - No, that's not what makes something BLP relevant. Again, biographical relevance is the impact to his life -- so what impact does one more lawsuit make to HIM ? He's been in hundreds of lawsuits, including multiples for the sexual allegations down to the Jane Doe story and none of those are detailed here. Previously this article had mentions of the Jane Doe etc lawsuits were inserted and later removed -- and this one seems more credible than Jane Doe, but lacks the threat of a felony charge so seems also a 'do not include'. The lawsuit over 1973 racial discrimination and another for Trump University are the only lawsuits mentioned. He's got about 100 times that much money already. It's effect is not going to stop the story that is already out. The prospective effect seems to for Stormy Daniels by blocking her making a few million profit in interviews/book deals so belongs in her BLP. Also ... compare the lawsuit to Melania did a few lawsuits not long ago over The Daily Mail story -- sued them for $150 million and a New York Times reporter for public verbal remarks, and sued a blogger. Only the Daily Mail suit is in her article, partly because it sounded like she was going to make money from being First Lady and partly as that was such a large amount in relation to the profit of Daily Mail. Nope, the lawsuit is another grain of sand but it's just not a significant event or money to him. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: - the relevance is that the President is embroiled in a sex scandal and is employing a lawsuit giving further credence to the scandal itself. In the sexual allegations I believe it was the women filing a suit and not him. You argue regarding Melania that "that was such a large amount in relation to the profit of Daily Mail" - and that perfectly applies in this case. The President is suing not a big corporation, not the government, not a wealthy business partner, but a private citizen. [Reportedly https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/stormy-daniels-net-worth/] Daniels has a net worth of $2 million. Each breach of the NDA is worth $1 million. Trump's lawyers are arguing she broke it over 20 times. You can calculate that for yourself. If the NDA is enforced, Daniels will incur extreme costs to tell her story, which is relevant to the President because he's willing to sue her that much to stop it. starship.paint ~ KO 02:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

*@Starship.paint: - hardly 'embroiled' ... he's off golfing and generally doing political tweets re FBI, while she doesn't even rate a twitter from him, lead press notice, and internet coverage is going to Jim Carrey's paintings. The dollar amount is not notable because it is in line to counter what she'd be getting from estimated 20 articles/interviews/book deals etcetera as compared to the Daily Mail amount being outrageously higher for a single article. It doesn't seem to 'add credibility' either -- it seems merely to reflect the monetary incentive of suing someone making possibly millions off this pays for the lawyers and maybe a couple million profit. This just seems a routine legal nothing to his life -- I suggest you look at the Legal affairs of Donald Trump and check a $20 million suit against the couple of Billion dollar lawsuits and ones in the 100 million dollar plus region. This one just isn't very notable among the many lawsuits he's brought or had brought against him. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Bold, but beautiful

Welp, I made an edit in accord with what I thought was consensus and I was reverted. I propose this wording which briefly covers the key points:

Trump allegedly had an extramarital affair with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels in 2006, months after Barron was born. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Trump's attorney Michael Cohen just before the 2016 presidential election. Jill Martin, a Trump Organization lawyer, is counsel in an arbitration demand involving Essential Consultants LLC, a company formed by Cohen to pay Daniels the $130,000 as part of a confidentiality agreement. Daniels is suing Trump to be released from the agreement so that she can speak about the affair.

Sources

Please indicate support or opposition below.- MrX 🖋 00:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

May I offer an alternate version - maybe with clearer timeline? Call it Option 2. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. On checking the sources I cited, "Adult film star" is used twice, "porn star" once, so I'm going with "adult film". I'm not going to say "star" because, hey, puffery. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Pornographic actress Adult film actress Stormy Daniels has alleged that she and Trump had an extramarital affair in 2006, shortly after Barron was born. Just before the 2016 presidential election Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Trump's attorney Michael Cohen as part of a confidentiality agreement. The money was paid through an LLC set up by Cohen; he says he used his own personal money for the payment. In February 2018 Daniels filed suit against the LLC asking to be released from the agreement so that she can tell her story. Cohen reportedly filed a private arbitration proceeding and obtained a restraining order to keep her from discussing the case. Jill Martin, a Trump Organization lawyer, is counsel in the arbitration case.

Sources

• Original text To add the text that was in the RFC question above was/is (lthough it is reverted again in the article) -- what people in the RFC may have thought was under discussion. Markbassett (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

"Trump is alleged to have had a extramarital affair with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels in 2006, months after Barron was born.

Sources

FTR, there has been no RfC on this question. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - agreed this is not the RFC question, which is why I reverted the edit in the article which claimed consensus for a paragraph that was not the text in the RFC -- and MrX got things back here for th BRD discussion apparently in the same 14 minutes while Davey2010 was undoing my revert. I did add the original text to the list above, FWIW. I think that RFC could be closed as moot / OBE / tangled because the proposal was not done or conclusion stated before things moved to different material. Meanwhile, I'll try and add in as able and note it is technically in the space of the RFC if not on topic -- considering it a subsection for more detailed side exploration of text mentions in the above. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: There has been no RfC about inclusion of any Stormy Daniels content in this article (or any other article). See WP:RFC for explanation of what an RfC is. It's important to use Wikipedia terms correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss -- oops, you are correct, it is not a formal RFC, it was just an informal call for voting that looked like RFC -- I will strike/correct my saying RFC in the post of original text above. Markbassett (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

---

*Oppose as written, support in principle. 1. Change "pornographic actress" to "adult film actress", per discussion, as actresses are never pornographic. 2. Trim excessive detail from the Jill Martin sentence, just conveying the confidentiality agreement. 3. Change "Daniel's" to "Daniels". ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The Trump Organization lawyer involvement is important because Trump's lawyer has claimed that Trump never paid off Stormy. I'm indifferent to how we describe Ms. Daniels' profession. (Removed apostrophe)- MrX 🖋 01:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fairly useless to a reader if you don't explain why the details are important. Add the necessary detail and you're UNDUE for his biography (in my opinion). Names of lawyers (except Cohen) and companies are already UNDUE for his biography. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. That's the dilemma.- MrX 🖋 01:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it as a dilemma if you start with the assumption that it's not our purpose in this particular article to fully explain the issue. He's accused of having an affair. He denies it. They paid her 130K. She wants out of the agreement so she can talk. End. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Option 2 not perfect but it reads better than option 1. Once the lawsuits are settled and the details are public it will have to be re-written anyhow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• No pride of authorship here. I would support option 2 as well, but two highly-reputable sources have seen the arbitration document, so I'm not sure we need the word "reportedly". - MrX 🖋 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Needs to state what was agreed not to disclose. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Umm, seems pretty obvious. It's no secret that she alleges there was an affair. Obviously that's what she isn't supposed to talk about - or at least any details beyond that. (Although details are getting out; she talked to 60 Minutes and reportedly the interview was so hot CBS was considering not airing it. But now they say they will.[26] ) --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - that seems an assumption about the terms of the agreement. Although it seems plausible, it's not actual info re the item and the terms may be about more than that or less or somehow different in nature -- we don't know what we don't have from RS. Her 2011 interview talking about affair events had already occurred, which would be outside the NDA, but again we're just generally guessing about something specific. Markbassett (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree, we don't know what it covered. And we don't pretend to know. What we do know is the existence of a non-disclosure agreement, and that is what we report.--MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support 2 as acceptable compromise. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 as well-written and more complete. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Changes -- Umm ... User:MelanieN -- should mention denial by Trump, and seems iffy to be dragging Barron into it in line 1 ? To a lesser extent, the Jill Martin line at the end does not seem very relevant by the text stated, so it could go. Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

1) I actually agree about Barron but most sources mention that for time context. I would be OK with removing it. 2) We could leave out her name, but the fact that she's a Trump Organization lawyer could be highly significant, since Cohen keeps insisting that the Trump Organization is and always has been totally arms-length from this situation. 3) Trump's denials are always kind of half hearted, and are kind of irrelevant anyhow since this is going to be put in the "legal affairs" section, not the "sex allegations" section. This item isn't about "did they or didn't they?" It's about the legal stuff. --MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Without the Barron mention, it's unclear whether it was "extramarital" with respect to Trump or Daniels. If it's deemed significant that it was extramarital with respect to Trump, we shouldn't ask readers to go research his dates of marriage and divorce, even if that could be easily done on the same page. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - Umm, this insert is premised on WP:PUBLICFIGURE which includes If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. As to the significance of Jill Marin... none of that (speculated?) relevance is shown in article text, so the point is not visible. Whether Cohen was not involving her in February and now is seems kind of a detail rather than part of a BLP summary pointing to the other article -- text that could / should be left to the other article. Markbassett (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I proposed below a denial sentence to add. I will shortly produce a Version 2.1 to account for all the changes people have suggested. About the Trump Organization attorney, you make a good point that it does not directly relate do the subject of this biography - just to his business - and maybe should be left out. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support 2 - You have to include the birth of Barron because it speaks to the notability of the event. I'd rather it said "after the birth of his child with Melania" to avoid mentioning Barron by name, but it's a bit more wordy. Other than that, I'm happy with MelanieN's suggested text. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment about timing: IMO we should discuss the wording for at least a few more days; it’s only 24 hours at this point and many people yet to be heard from. But I think we may want to get an item into the article sometime next week, before CBS airs its 60 Minutes interview (currently scheduled for March 25), since that is likely to bring readers to the page looking for background information. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Without it, I think it reads like a non sequitur. I see that it's in version B now. I think the applicable term is "nondisclosure agreement". Also I still think "adult film actress" calls attention to the awkwardness of the euphemism. I'm sure WP has a bunch of avid editors of such topics, so we could check best practices or MOS for these critters. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Well, our article Stormy Daniels says “pornographic actress”. So does our article Michael Dean Cohen. Maybe we should go with the flow then. --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Also, both articles say "nondisclosure agreement" rather than "confidentiality agreement". I'm thinking we should change that as well. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Much better. Also, for the avoidance of doubt in your second sentence, I'm assuming Cohen is not a porn actor. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Who can say? PackMecEng (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose going with bad flows. There is no evidence this choice has been examined closely in those other places. Going with flows hinders improvements. I stand by my opinion that "adult film actress" is not euphemistic but rather encyclopedic tone—and more correct use of language than to say that an actress is pornographic. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: FYI text has been inserted, removed and inserted again over the last few hours. Although there seems to be emerging consensus to insert something, it looks like the long version that was placed in the article would not be supported by most editors. I agree with you that text should be inserted next week if agreement can be found on exact content. Please evaluate whether anybody violated any sanction with those recent edits, I'm not touching this with a 10-foot pole... — JFG ^talk 17:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

And I have removed it again. I hate it when people jump the gun like this; the discussion about wording has been open for barely 24 hours; at least allow a few days for people to chime in, so there is time for improvement and development of consensus. Also, the version added to the article was Option 1, while most discussion here has seemed to prefer Option 2. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any inclusion of this until it is proven to be true.--MONGO 17:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Your argument is contradicted by policy. WP:PUBLICFIGURE, #2. ValarianB (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

What we are putting into the article IS proven to be true, namely the legal situation: there is an allegation, there was a payoff, there is ongoing litigation. We aren't saying anything about whether there was or was not an affair, only what is known about the current situation. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Stand by my comment without deviation.--MONGO 18:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That is your privilege. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course, it's a deviation from WP policy, just not from your earlier denial of it. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support either version. As I corrected the user above, this is literally the situation used as an example in BLP policy on how to write about an alleged affair. ValarianB (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Addition of denial The following was added to the entry while it was on the article page:According to White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, Trump has denied the allegations. I think that is good - especially the attribution, because I don't think Trump himself has ever said publicly that it didn't happen - and should be added to whichever version we ultimately use. --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Mention of Barron Trump

• About Barron: Several people, including me, don't like naming him in this item. Most references do name him, as our two proposals here do. But the Politico reference I used above [27] says "months after the birth of Trump's youngest son." I like that better. OK with people if I make that change? --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  I would support removing Barron's name. There's no point dragging an innocent child into this ugliness.- MrX 🖋 18:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Addresses my concern and is fine with me. But the pronoun "his" works there and I hate surname overload. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(reinsert prior post below - sorry, some glitch happened amid edit collisions that somehow messed up Markbassett (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC))

The papers may have done emotive drumbeating we would not need for simple statement of event w. redirect to detailed article. To address the mention it is to clarify the 'extramarital', I suggest the better way to clarify extramarital is to name the spouse. Barron is not directly relevant to the affair itself - he's not the cause or present -- nor is he prominently repeated in the mentions as a significant part of what is being summarized. How about changing the line: "she and Trump had an extramarital affair in 2006, shortly after Barron was born. after he was married to Melania Knauss" ? Markbassett (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

While, not after. With that change, I could go either way. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

We should explicitly state it was after the birth of Trump and Melania's child. Given Trump's apparent proclivities, for all we know Barron may not be his youngest son. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh come on. You might as well say we should add "possibly more" to the Children field of the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Support! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Obliviously! ―Mandruss ☎ 19:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously though, if we are not going to say "Barron" (which I am uncomfortable with), I think "shortly after the birth of Trump's child with Melania" (or something like that) is better. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, many have speculated the curious $130K hush money amount may have been related to a possible pregnancy/abortion situation, speculation that was augmented by the use of "paternity" in the NDA (although that was probably just boilerplate language). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

There's been all kinds of speculation. Some of which is enough to make a person slightly nauseous. Let's keep it out of these pages, please. As for "child with Melania", I don't want to drag her name into this sordid mess either. I like "Trump's youngest son", or better yet, "Trump's youngest child" (youngest son suggests he has an even younger daughter). --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ahem. "His", unless somebody disputes my comment about surname overload. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Why do we need to mention that the alleged affair occurred just after Barron's birth? Sounds like an extra scoop of tabloid-level shaming, which doesn't change anything to the legal dispute. Just drop this part. — JFG ^talk 04:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

My answer to your question. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You say it would be unclear whether the affair was extramarital wrt Trump or Daniels. That's unpersuasive as a reason to mention Barron's birth. When an affair with a porn actress is described as "extramarital", readers will certainly assume that the man was married, not the porn star. It is wholly unnecessary and unencyclopedic to drag Barron or Melania into this just for the kicks of implying "look, Trump banged a porn star while his wife was nursing". Again, we are not a tabloid. — JFG ^talk 07:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

readers will certainly assume that the man was married, not the porn star. Like you, I can only speak for myself, but not this reader. Porn stars are about as likely to be married as anybody. Daniels has been married twice according to her BLP, and the alleged affair occurred during the 1- to 2-year gap between her first and her second. It's tabloidish only if gratuitous, and I say it is not gratuitous but rather unambiguous writing. If you can think of a better way to clarify that he was married at the time, I'm all ears. I think saying "Trump was married at the time" would be a worse way. If we can't clarify what "extramarital" means in this context, it should be removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course the starlet can be married as well. Still, this is Trump's bio, it strikes me as rather obvious that the "extramarital" qualifier applies to him. To make things crystal-clear without mentioning the baby, we could replace "an extramarital affair" with "an affair while Trump was married", but that looks like pretty sloppy prose to me. I'd be fine with your alternate suggestion of removing "extramarital" entirely, because "affair" says enough. — JFG ^talk 08:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeing that the text was re-inserted with an encouragement to "improve it the wiki way", I have removed the "youngest son" mention, as UNDUE. Revert me if you think that has any material influence on the case. — JFG ^talk 04:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Everybody needs to just leave the article alone until there is a consensus here. No, I'm not going to add to the problem by reverting you, but thanks for the offer. If there is a fairly clear status quo ante, I wouldn't object if somebody restored it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the article should have been left alone during the discussion, but some editors decided that was somehow an urgent matter to address. The statu quo ante has nothing on Stormy, there is emerging consensus to insert something, although content is very much still under discussion. Not in the mood of dragging people to AE, though. — JFG ^talk 07:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

With DS, you don't need AE. All you need is an uninvolved admin who takes ArbCom remedies seriously, and there are several I can think of without much effort. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's not use the strict DS restrictions as a tool to stifle editing. JFG's edit was reasonable (although I don't fully agree with the substance of it) and exactly what I meant in my edit summary. If anyone believes that the timing of the alleged affair and the timing of Barron's birth is important, we can have a discussion about restoring that material. - MrX 🖋 12:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The timing of the alleged affair is important, because it clarifies what Trump was doing in his life (which this article is about) at the time. The claim that it is "tabloidy" is absurd, because the source we use in the article is BBC News (one of the most respected news outlets on the planet), and it specifically refers to it: If Ms Daniels' account is true, this would all have happened just four months after the birth of Mr Trump's youngest child, Barron. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, calling something from a reliable source "tabloidy" is not a valid argument. What matters is if the material is necessary to a reader's understanding and if it is appropriately weighted. I think it's important (but not quite as important as the Trump Organization lawyer involvement). I have not yet checked to see if it meets due weight.- MrX 🖋 14:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If I haven't said this lately: I oppose using Barron's name, but I think it could be significant to the readers' understanding to place the alleged affair in that time frame. --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Has the reference to Trump's youngest son been restored yet? We can and have discussed omitting the lad's name but there was clearly no consensus to remove the reference to the fact that Trump's wife had just borne him a child at the time of the affair. The removal should be undone and the disingenuous edit summary(ies) for these POV-type edits should be noted with prejudice. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

OK now I see that JFG has walked it back and stated that it's OK to undo the edit that removed the reference to Trump's unnamed little son. Can we get that restored now? That would then roughly reflect the current consensus. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have restored it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Eggcellent. 🥚🥚🥚. Thanks. In the future, I hope editors would handle this by a self-revert once they've acknowledged error or overreach. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - The better way to clarify 'extramarital' (if that seems necessary) is simply to name the spouse. "she and Trump had an extramarital affair in 2006, shortly after Barron was born. after he was married to Melania Knauss" ? Seems like should be naming adults rather than any children. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any need to clarify "extramarital" (although I would keep it in). She says they had an affair, he is paying her to keep quiet about it, that's the story. The question of who was or was not married at the time seems completely extraneous to me as long as it was consensual, which it apparently was. We have already agreed not to name Barron; I also oppose naming Melania. I would say, for time context, that it was shortly (most sources say "a few months") after "his youngest son" or "his youngest child" was born. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sigh.

Well, it appears that some people (namely MrX) simply cannot wait even a few hours for wording to be worked out here. So I guess I will just go ahead and make, in the article, the changes I was going to propose for "Option 2.1". Since I still believe in discussion, even though that doesn't seem to be what is happening here, I will say that those changes include: removing the sentence about the Trump Organization lawyer (this is a biography, not an article about the Trump Organization) and adding Trump's (reported) denial. --MelanieN (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So I guess I will just go ahead - That's how these things snowball. At an article under the ArbCom remedies, the correct action is (1) restore status quo ante, and (2) if anybody edits without consensus, find an uninvolved admin who is prepared to use the discretionary sanction power precisely intended for that purpose. Coffee would know what to do here. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: With your edit, you inadvertently restored the text "whose real name is Stephanie Clifford", which I had removed earlier as unnecessary detail. If this was indeed unwitting, please remove it again (I can't due to DS restrictions). If you think it's due, please explain. — JFG ^talk 08:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

JFG, that was not inadvertent. Nothing was ever discussed here about removing her real name; every source reporting on this matter includes it; you removed it suddenly and unilaterally, without ever even suggesting it anywhere that I am aware of, much less giving any reason or argument for doing it, and I disagree with that removal. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry MelanieN, but you should not have removed the material in its entirely at a time when media coverage of this has increased and readers will be looking for this material.[28] As an aside, I'm opposed to removing the Trump Organization lawyer piece, because it is one of the few fully verifiable facts in all of this, but I defer to consensus on that matter. @Mandruss: My edit respected a very clear consensus and is in accord with WP:EDITING and WP:ARBAPDS. You are welcome to take it to WP:AE is you disagree, but please don't try to throw Coffee in my face.- MrX 🖋 12:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

MrX, what material are you talking about - that I "removed in its entirety"? --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This. - MrX 🖋 14:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That's kind of old news, since you promptly restored it (or restored another version of it). I gave my reasons for removing it: It was still under active discussion and I had been hoping we might reach some kind of agreement here on the wording - but you overruled that idea. OK, so now it's in the article and we will work in the wording there. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Why was this edit removed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=831507448&oldid=831502299

User:Atsme, it would be helpful if users who make wholesale deletions of another user's edits would provide a specific reason for doing so in their edit summary rather than merely tossing it to the talk page.

Please specify the problem with my edits.soibangla (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was reverted, but I know that editors are not allowed to use WP:ROLLBACK in content disputes. That in itself deserves an explantation.- MrX 🖋 01:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

There was no content dispute. Look at the edits. I also explained the reverts. Twinkle does rollbacks, too. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't "explain the reverts", you just restated the fact that you reverted. That's not an explanation. And whether it's twinkle or rollback button, using it to undo non-vandalism edits is abuse of rollback.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, your response is rather dismissive. You're not allowed to use rollback to revert content that you don't like. If you want to lose the bit, just keep doing what you're doing.- MrX 🖋 01:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it again, as controversial and under discussion here. Atsme, seeing your self-revert - with the edit summary "undo, not vandalism" - I am more puzzled than ever about your reason for taking it out in the first place. You regarded it as vandalism???? --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, MelanieN - I did consider it vandalism at first but reverted my edit when a dialogue began on the TP. I initially responded to what I saw as a red flag BLP/NPOV vio - "worst president ever" cited to an op-ed piece that was added by an editor with 525 edits, and a TP with notices, disruptive editing warnings, a block/request denial, copyvios and various other warnings. I notified the editor on his/her TP, which was an appropriate action under the circumstances. You should know me well enough by now to know that I am always open to discussion, and while I may not be perfect, I am certainly not an asshat. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a shame I'll never live down the bad boy rep that I "earned" by attempting to move too fast through the minefield WP can be, because I have not dedicated my life to mastering all of it, especially since I quickly discovered that even WP has trolls. Oh, well. soibangla (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Soibangla, it may help if you would archive your TP and get more edits under your belt before you jump in the deep end trying to edit BLPs that are loaded with DS that have restrictions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how I jumped into the deep end here. I do see how you responded injudiciously here. soibangla (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, there you go again - implying that he somehow violated DS with his edits. He did not. He added well-sourced material to the article, as permitted by the DS. You "challenged it by reverting", as permitted by the DS. He came to the talk page, as he should per the DS. There is nothing in his edit, or in his recent behavior, to justify your scolding that he should not be editing DS-limited articles. If anyone went over the line here, it was you - using rollback to remove it, and not explaining your reason, either at the time or later when asked. I'm not implying any DS violations on your part or anyone else's - just noting that he has just as much right to edit here as you do. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, his edit was a BLP vio - the source used to make that highly derogatory comment about a WP:BLP, was an opinion piece, an improper comparison against a 1st year president vs full-term presidents and clearly false and misleading (read the last para in that article) which did indeed raise concerns of vandalism. You know full well the Trump articles are plagued with vandalism so it was a natural reaction under the circumstances, and even if it wasn't vandalism, it was a clear violation of BLP. Perhaps Soibangla needs a refresher in BLP policy so it doesn't happen again: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. I probably should not have self-reverted but I did so in an effort to keep the peace - and I did notify that the edits were challenged, but probably should have explained that it was a BLP vio. Editors here should have seen that as well, yet I'm now seeing an attempt to include it despite BLP, and that may require further attention. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Whether it was or was not appropriate for a BLP will be discussed here. You were fully within your rights to remove it - we can challenge anything that we think is controversial - and in fact I agree with you that the material should not be in the article. Not because I think it violates BLP (I don't), but because I think it is UNDUE and that the whole question is infected with recentism and partisanship. Yes, you certainly should have explained why you removed it - in an edit summary at the time, or later when people asked you. It took a while for you to come up with "BLP violation" as your reason, but at least now you have given it. Now let's discuss whether or not to include the material and move on. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It is no more "infected with recentism and partisanship" than are public opinion polls, which are routinely allowed all over the place. In this case, it is a survey of subject matter experts. soibangla (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Although the referenced NYT article is an opinion piece, closer examination shows the underlying source was this survey, which the NYT links to and displays the results of. I did not reference that source because my understanding is that is an improper "primary source." My edit was not "unsourced or poorly sourced," as you assert. soibangla (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for self-reverting. Now, on to the material itself - personally I think it belongs in Presidency of Donald Trump rather than here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I will take it there so it can be removed again there. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Soibangla, thank you for bringing this to the talk page. That was the right thing to do. Your two additions were 1) a section about various people rating Trump as one of the worst presidents ever. I think that is out of place in this biography; it's just the opinion of the people surveyed, and it is heavily tainted by recentism and (probably) partisanship. It seems to me we have discussed this kind of addition before, and while there was not a formal consensus, most people seemed to agree we shouldn't include it. And 2) some additional evidence in the "Trump is untruthful" section. IMO that section already has enough evidence and enough WEIGHT, and there is no need to pile on. So I would favor leaving out both of these additions. Or if we add newer material about the truthfulness issue, remove an equal weight of older material. Anyhow, IMO there was nothing wrong with adding this stuff; it is relevant to the article subject and well sourced; and it's too bad the reverter didn't explain (and still hasn't explained) why she reverted it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Rather than "just the opinion of the people surveyed," it's a survey of subject matter experts, as opposed to a common public opinion poll. If my edit is inappropriate here, I suggest the public opinion polling that precedes it should also be removed, which would also mean removing the entire section because that's all that's there. soibangla (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is important to show the unanimity of the three best-known fact-checkers on the web. soibangla (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a valid point. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Build content. There is enough material for a fairly long, and extremely well-sourced separate article. It's a very notable subject, and we do not give it the due weight it deserves, according to RS coverage of the subject. A little more is far from enough, but it's something. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The only legitimate reason for not including it is that it more likely belongs in the presidency article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree about that. This has nothing to do with his presidency. This is about his character - about him personally - and it predates his presidency. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right about that. Then include it here. As content grows, if a section gets large enough to create an undue weight problem, we follow the normal procedure and WP:SPINOFF. We don't limit content or remove content to make room for more. That would violate WP:PRESERVE, a policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FactCheck.org characterized Trump as the "King of Whoppers" as a candidate in December 2015 seems too silly/trivial for this page. The Bill Adair remarks are probably fine; it's almost impossible to discuss Trump's chronic lying fairly here (mentioning his bragging about lying to Justin Trudeau [29] would probably be undue). The "worst president" survey probably is best handled on the Presidency page; there are too many caveats to include it here power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Is this sorta like what's good for the goose is good for the gander? In other words, if we agree to Fact Check whoppers for Trump, we can apply that same principal to the BLPs of past presidents...such as Obama whoppers? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage that soibangla (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Just note that untruthfulness is a defining characteristic of Trump - so much so that we have had for a long time, by consensus, well sourced information in this article that "many of his statements are controversial or false". It's so characteristic of him that even his lawyers realize it; they are afraid to let him talk to Mueller because they think he would almost certainly say some things that are not true and get nailed for lying under oath.[30] We could add a comparable paragraph for Obama for balance, if you like and if consensus accepts it at that page, but a paragraph is the most it could be. The link you give has some valid misstatements about policy - but untruthfulness is not a defining characteristic of Obama as it is universally recognized to be for Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It depends on one's perspective...perhaps this article will jar your memory. A little refresher from time to time serves to make one a bit more appreciative of when BLPs are written from a NPOV. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

One link, for one source discussing one other source? Speaking of perspective... I propose you look at the totality of reliable sources, not the one tiny fraction that supports your views. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Well, that op-ed is certainly not written from a NPOV. But the FactCheck thing you posted earlier is and it could be used. And there are multiple other articles that could be used,[31] some comparing the two (Trump loses badly), some simply listing falsehoods by Obama. It's a common understanding that "all politicians lie", but it is also universally recognized by Reliable Sources that Trump is in a class by himself. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that this is just ye ol' whataboutism, it's just a silly op-ed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's the same errors he's compounding over on the Mr. Wales talk page I see, an extremely simplistic "I will balance the negative facts about my guy by digging up negative facts about your guy". The outright fabrications that the current president has made truly are a world apart from the run of the mill truth-stretching (Obama's story of Ms. Dunham being denied for pre-existing conditions) or misstatements ("57 states"). Apples and oranges. TheValeyard (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I know full well that I'm talking to experienced editors who know, or should know, who James Bovard is, and that the article I linked to is chock full of links to multiple RS. Melanie, if "not written from a NPOV" was an auto-disqualifier, there would be far fewer Trump articles in WP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A building where academia types belonging to the American Political Science Association meet.

FWIW, and in my humble opinion, the offending passage should stay removed. There are probably thousands of academic associations in the U.S. alone that meet in little ivy covered brick townhouses and which have members who are exceedingly disapproving of Trump. If one wants to fish for disapproving organizations and clubs in Europe to cite, the list likely grows to tens of thousands. The American Political Science Association is insufficiently noteworthy to merit mention of their opinion without pushing both WP:UNDUE and WP:Bias in sources to the breaking point. Greg L (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"The American Political Science Association is insufficiently noteworthy" — Founded in 1903, APSA publishes three academic journals (American Political Science Review, Perspectives on Politics, and PS: Political Science & Politics). APSA Organized Sections publish or are associated with 15 additional journals...Woodrow Wilson, who later became President of the United States, was APSA president in 1909. soibangla (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, you all might as well desist with invoking the name and beliefs of Mr. Wales; he's like royalty in England: a figurehead with precious little practical power for minor issues like this one. The debate at hand is readily solvable merely by looking towards well established bedrock policy that is the product of decades of debate and consensus by a very large number of wikipedians. Greg L (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course you'd be right if they were the only ones espousing those views, or even members of small minority. They are clearly neither. But we can't say much without some kind of attribution, so we have to choose somebody whose viewpoint accurately reflects RS on the subject, and that is what has been attempted here. If you want to nominate somebody else for that role, go ahead, but don't say "well it's just their opinion, and who are they?" It's anything but "just their opinion". ―Mandruss ☎ 05:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

“[A]nd who are they?” Well… at least you correctly identified the key Wikipedia principle as you trampled upon it. Greg L (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The "key Wikipedia principle" is WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT, and I'm not the one trampling on Wikipedia principles. Nominate one or more "somebody else"s to represent overall RS if you like...as I said. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What’s with those debate skills of yours? With your Nominate one or more "somebody else"s to represent overall RS if you like...as I said, you keep trying to lay down the gauntlet in a lame attempt to put the onus on me to nominate a better source than the biased source that was deleted… and needs to stay deleted. If that displeases you, then you go find proper sources to quote and cite. Greg L (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion in this article, but support inclusion at Presidency of Donald Trump. Disapprove of Atsme's behavior over the matter, and frankly part of a troubling pattern lately. When you're referencing James Bovard (a person who loudly espouses fringe opinions to sell books, often referred to as a "blowhard" by critics) to win an argument, you're doing it wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - poorly sourced one-time survey of 170 people to call the US President the worst despite a strong US economy, not to mention it's only his first year, it's dated, and it's noncompliant with RECENTISM - not sure it isn't a BLP violation because of the poor sourcing which is why I took the action I did. I dissapprove of Scjessey's blatant BLP violation - it should be deleted, not just a strike-thru. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk about content, please, not other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Atsme, just about everything in your "oppose" comment is either irrelevant or wrong. Purely disruptive. Your comment is a good illustration of what Scjessey objects to above. You often denigrate RS because you imbibe misinformation from unreliable sources on the pretext that "just wait", your conspiracy theory that Trump is innocent and this Russia business is all fake news designed to harm Trump. He's innocent as a choirboy and not a serial liar and serial adulterer. That pretty much sums up the gist of many of your comments and it's tiring and disruptive. That it's civil makes it even more insidious. Civil tendentious editors create endless discussions. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is the original source, from subject matter experts who study these things for a living, as opposed to opinion polls of the ignorant masses. soibangla (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Soibangla -- Poor survey group -- a survey of no particular impact of a side group does not belong. That Political Science professors indulged in emotionalistally calling him 'worst' seems hardly professional or particularly important -- general polls call Obama 2nd worst, it is just a result of recentism. Nor does it seem appropriate to label this group as teh only or even particularly important subject matter experts above say historians or military or businessmen or other candidates. We might equally well (i.e. bad idea) choose to get a rating (likely high) from surveying Miltary for the Foreign policy section or from the Business community for the Domestic section. This would only lead to more clutter of umpteen more paragraphs about minor transitory details in his personal BLP that belong in the Presidential article or not at all. Instead, note that the WP:WEIGHT in outside prominence is to look at broad "approval ratings" and that WP precedent in Historical rankings of presidents of the United States and BLP goes with much larger surveys of broad selection. Unless there is actual, enduring, and significant impact out of this -- it does not belong. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asserting "this group as teh only or even particularly important." I have always maintained that the solution to perceived undue weight is not the deletion of content, but rather the addition of other content that provides balance. If another user can produce a survey of subject matter experts saying that Trump belongs on Mt. Rushmore, by all means, have at it. More information is better, let the user weigh the evidence. soibangla (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• “Blatant BLP violation”? Atsme, get real. And read WP:BLP. The BLP restrictions are about "adding information about living persons" - for example, "serious allegations". It is not about calling someone a mildly insulting name on a talk page. As for James Bovard, you gave a link to indicate that he is an important person we should all know about. I followed the link and found an unreferenced stub. I suspect the only reason it hasn’t been AfDed is that it’s been here since 2008 and nobody has bothered. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, Bovard is an author and lecturer, and the fact that no one has bothered to expand his article is not unusual - we see it all the time in NPP. His Wikiquote article includes a bit more info about his writings, but I figured you are quite capable of finding sources. Perhaps if I said he is highly critical of Trump, there would be more incentive to work the Google. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Oppose"? "Support"? What specifically are you all talking about here - adding another reference for untruthfulness, adding truthfulness information to the Obama article, or adding the surveys about "worst president"? All three have been discussed in this thread and we seem unclear which we are talking about when we say "oppose". Bovard is cited about Obama dishonesty. "Survey of 170 people" is talking about "worst president". If somebody wants to start a survey, please make it into a separate section and clarify exactly what you are proposing to include or keep out. IMO the Obama suggestion should be discussed on that talk page, not here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC) P.S. I am going to set up two discussions below so we can keep straight what we are talking about. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, to begin, there actually is a clear BLP violation on this page with the name-calling of Bovard by Scjessey (perhaps you forgot the "common decency" warning I got from Bish for misspelling Papadopoulos?) Secondly, the survey is also a BLP vio: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. The peacock lead-in to the derogatory opinion by Bill Adair and the King of Whoppers is not NPOV. I am dismayed that it is even being considered, especially in light of the George Mason University study that studied the fact checkers: Whether this outcome is desirable depends on your own political predispositions and views of reality. Either way, it is certainly consequential, and therefore well worthy of serious study. In short, PolitiFact’s ratings of political reality cannot help but create their own political reality. And understanding the mediated reality of politics is central to understanding politics itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at who funds the source of that "George Mason University" study. GMU hosts a number of conservative/libertarian thinktanks that have been known to produce dubious "studies" soibangla (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation to refer to a blowhard as a blowhard. His vocation is to quite literally spread his questionable views as loudly and as boastfully as possible in order to sell books, which is accurately summed up with the term "blowhard". And if you have reached the point where you are using obscure studies to question the Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact to bolster your argument, then your argument is on shaky ground. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I have created sections below where you can present your arguments about the two different types of edit (rankings and truthfulness) under discussion here. Please stop trivializing the important and serious policy WP:BLP by claiming it is violated by a negative or unflattering comment at a talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I'm not trivializing...it is as serious as the following 2 diffs will demonstrate when a BLP is involved: Bish warned, I wasn't the only one misspelling the name so I joked about the misspellings and was warned, and you responded. Now what was that you were saying about "trivializing"? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to take this discussion to your talk page. It's getting to be clutter here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, stop trivializing BLP and using this as a platform for your grudges. Wikipedia is a reality based community where facts matter. Not 'alternate facts'. Though those can be presented, but as they should be presented. Donald Trump Barack Obama Dave Dial (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

So they fact checked obama 599 times over 8 years in office and Trump 532 times over 15 months in office how is that not biased? עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The more lies one tells, the more times the statements must be factchecked. Trump lies a lot more than anyone ever encountered by factcheckers. Period. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your focus on the numbers is revealing, as is claiming the fact checkers are biased. Honestly, if I could put a rule into Wikipedia by fiat, I would state that anyone that states that award winning fact checkers that are trusted sources are "biased", they are forbidden to edit any BLP on the project and banned from all American political articles post 1932. But to answer your question, obviously they fact check Trump more because Trump tells lies like each one earns another golden palace. Dave Dial (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Fact checkers don't check statements like "The sky is blue". O3000 (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Dang it is getting deep in here, going to have to get some waders, if those are the arguments. PackMecEng (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

References
References

Ranking Trump in relation to other presidents

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.

---

We are discussing this edit. It did two things. Let’s discuss them separately. In the "Political image" section, should we include this survey ranking Trump in comparison to other presidents? --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have consistently opposed citing public opinion polls in these articles, but this is a survey of accredited experts giving their professional evaluations. I think this is a good source and that it belongs in this biography article. Being worst US President in history is a pretty big deal. Certainly a more noteworthy and enduring personal achievement than Trump's failed career in real estate or the details of his appearances as an entertainer. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• I Oppose adding anything about this. It's all opinion (even if it's informed opinion) and IMO it is way, way too early to be assessing his place in history. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• We document opinions here, especially expert opinion. There is no policy-based backing for excluding it, and NPOV requires that we often do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Do not include - for several reasons

1. The WP:WEIGHT and norm is about 'approval rating' rather than 'worst' for a Presidential page, personal page, or Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. A 'worst' rating gets into emotionalism and to point to 'the current' seems an observation of recentism from the same groups 2014 survey saying Obama was most wrst, or from the historical rankings page where Obama is now the 2nd worst ever.

   Huh? Did you read your own source? Their 2014 scholarly poll did not rank Obama "most worst"; it ranked him 18th - in other words in the top half. And our "Historical rankings" article shows that in public polling, Obama ranks both second best AND second worst in popular opinion. Please let's keep the discussion here fact-based and not make up our own statistics. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN and aggregate is what the main message is -- but about WORST, that 2014 poll showed 33% viewed Obama as the worst, and thse who view him as the worst outnumber 3 to 1 the next highest (Bush). Again -- the aggregate is the normal or most common and main message, going underneath the aggregate gets into a fringe that is hard to describe and subject to emotionalism and recentism. Markbassett (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Too WP:NPOV a small/picked group. Generally only overall survey from large numbers and broad groups is prominent, not a select group of Political Science one of many small surveys that run about. This is citing an Opinion piece that indicates the author selected the population to ask. It is already a minor add to the historical ranking article with caveat asterisk for 'during', but this article should not cover each and every survey taken on the Presidency of Donald Trump or even the multiples of prominent surveys (WSJ, Siena, Newsweek, C-SPAN...) as they each go by.
2. Poorly reviewed. That a secondary review of it occurred is taken as reflection of some notability, but the comments by the individual are a criticism of the poll value.
3. WP:OFFTOPIC - there's already too much clutter in here that is not about significant events and actions of Donald Trump. Neither the survey nor the reviewer of it have had demonstrated an effect on Donald Trump's life enough to go in here. If it has has a major and enduring impact about the Presidency, it goes to that article. The only way to stop this article being trivia du jour is to stop putting in trivia du jour -- just stop putting in EvErY item that appears in the morning web.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - UNDUE, doesn't serve any real purpose for readers. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Non-encyclopedic due to lack of compliance with WP:UNDUE and WP:Bias in sources. Greg L (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Greg L, you really shouldn't post policy acronyms without understanding them. WP:Bias in sources expressly "allows" biased sources. Similarly, people often cite BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE as a reason to exclude negative content about public figures, not realizing that it actually requires inclusion of properly sourced scandals and allegations, even if they are not true, with certainly qualifications. They "should be in" the article. Rather than a protection for public figures, BLP actually provides public figures with less protection than others, just as libel laws do in real life. So know what you're posting. Your objection, just as most others here, is just wikilawyering. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, dear sir; please dismount from your high horse, for you blocketh the sunlight for the mere peons down below. I didn’t know that you were The One who truly understands all on Wikipedia.

  I know full well about BLP and such. I’ve been on Wikipedia quite some time so please desist with your posturing and pontificating. BLP and what it permits for public figures has nothing to do with anything. The issue at hand is whether or not the inclusion of a biased point of view by a biased source was done in an encyclopedic manner to bring balance to the article. Its inclusion was not for that purpose. It was POV pushing. Greg L (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Greg L: - Its inclusion was not for that purpose. It was POV pushing. May I ask how you know that? (Great Wikipedia stinging riposte, by the way, very impressive.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: Thanks for the pat on the back; I’m glad you enjoyed it. How do I know the purpose of that paragraph was for POV pushing? Well, other than our Race and intelligence article, is there another article besides Trump on Wikipedia that is more rife with POV pushing? Pondering the motive behind authoring something that has the effect of POV pushing reminds me of the defense attorney who asked a witness whether he “saw” the defendant bite the ear off the victim. “Well, no,” the witness confessed. “Then how can you possibly conclude my client bit off the victims ear,” the attorney asked? “Because I saw him spit it out,” the witness replied. The paragraph in question was an ear on the floor. Greg L (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Greg L: Sorry, I'm not buying. First, claims of POV pushing here have been about evenly split between claims of pro-Trump POV pushing and claims of anti-Trump POV pushing. I personally think this particular article has less than its share of POV-pushing, and that's supported by the fact that we rarely see anything go from here to AE. But even if your premise were true, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that something that happens to be Trump-negative is POV pushing until proven otherwise, for no other reason than that the article has a lot of POV-pushing. Could be an attempt to balance, if probably not the best of attempts. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: Sure; POV pushing is a two-way street. No Wikipedia article should read like a tit-for-tat where someone transcribed Koko, the sign language gorilla: “Trump bad stinky. Koko good.” Greg L (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Greg L:, so under what conditions would you allow properly sourced content which has a biased POV? Are there any policies which would allow or forbid doing so? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The article already reads like "dueling banjos,” BullRangifer. The best solution isn’t to find ever more clever ways to POV-push-left to counter someone else’s POV-push-right. Instead, it is better to invite a small group of well respected and talented wikipedians to collaborate on someone’s sandbox somewhere, start with transplanted content from the current article, and do some military-grade rewriting to produce a new version of the article that is informative and interesting while maintaining a far more encyclopedic tone. Once done, you put it into articlespace. The challenge, insofar as citations go, will be double-tough on Trump because the RSs tend to be just as polarized as the wikipedians that inhabit Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, but not the way I approach article writing. I try to let RS determine content and weight. Our job is to document that, and personally I also allow that to form my thinking and beliefs. I shared some of my philosophy on that subject on MastCell's page yesterday. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

In 5 years I've never seen such a thing proposed, let alone attempted, let alone work. Just for starters, who decides who's well-respected and talented? Unless you want to actually try something like that, let's do the best we can the way it's always been done—with a small group of Wikipedians with varied respect and talent, most of whom are making a good faith attempt to edit the article per Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The other way has never worked, and it's not based on a broad consensus, but on a cabal of editors who create an article based on their artificial ideas of an "ideal article". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Five years of experience and that informs you that a practice doesn’t exist and isn’t good because you haven’t seen it? Wow. You two seem to enjoy blalthering here on a forgone conclusion (the consensus was clear long ago on this RFC) merely to inflate your self esteem by pretending you know all about how Wikipedia works and feeling like a big fish in a small pond. Goodbye. I have no more need for useless wikidrama. Try LiveLeak. Greg L (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – Respondents from the source study are heavily biased politically with 57% identifying as Democrats, 13% as Republicans and 27% as independents. Another breakdown of respondents (self-assessed) is 32% liberal, 26% "somewhat liberal", 24% "moderate", 12% "somewhat conservative" and just 5% conservative. Given that Trump is considered (by himself and Congress) as the most effective President to implement a conservative agenda, there is little wonder that a group of people calling themselves 83% opposed to conservative policies would rank him extremely poorly. For the same reason, I oppose inclusion in the Presidency article. — JFG ^talk 05:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  JFG, please point us to the policy forbidding inclusion because of bias. Is it somewhere in NPOV? Or is it in the new "Trump exemption" policy, being applied liberally on this page, which forbids bias and RS, but only if the bias and RS reflect poorly on Trump? (Outside of Trump-related articles, the normal policies apply to everyone else.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  It's called WP:Common sense. I do not see any "Trump exemption": similar debates consistently yield similar results on other political figures, left, right or center. — JFG ^talk 05:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  BTW, nothing is "forbidden", you've been editing long enough to understand that consensus of editors is the ultimate arbiter of what gets included or not. — JFG ^talk 05:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, and consensus can violate multiple policies. Now where is the policy forbidding inclusion because of bias? If you can't provide it, you're admitting you're supporting a policy violating censorship. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Policy neither forbids nor forces inclusion of anything. Content is determined by consensus of editors after a reasoned discussion illuminated by policy — JFG ^talk 08:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  !Votes that are not policy-based should not be counted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  BTW, thanks for providing proof that you do follow the WP:Trump exemption and literally ignore/violate PAG. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  @BullRangifer: You are misrepresenting my statements. In my comment you just referred to, I wrote specifically that I don't see any exemption for Trump vs any other political figure. And I've been critical of editors claiming any "exemption" for any politician. Your creation of a redirect Wikipedia:Trump exemption pointing to WP:IAR is disruptive and I will nominate it for deletion per WP:POINT. — JFG ^talk 07:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  @JFG:, ???? You are the one who linked to IAR in your rely. WP:Common sense redirects to IAR. Maybe you didn't realize that? You should nominate that redirect for deletion as well, because it is not common sense to IAR in relation to Trump. Your use creates an exemption for him not given to others.

  My point is that multiple policies are being ignored and violated by refusal to add negative material to the article, and you confirmed that view by then using WP:Common sense, IOW, appearing to say that you were comfortable ignoring those policies because you think it's "common sense" to IAR by making an exemption for Trump and thus sparing his thin skin.

  Now does that sound a bit extreme when I really spell it out? YES! (Were you making a WP:POINT violation?? No, because you really believe it.)

  Do you really go that far in your thinking? I doubt it (although your track record of protecting Trump tends strongly in that direction), but the effect of most of the opposes here is the same. They use spurious, non policy-based arguments, to block the addition of properly sourced negative material to this article. That violates BLP, NPOV, and PUBLICFIGURE. That's a sad situation. Trump gets away with far more horrible behavior in real life than any other president would get away with, and that practice of giving him a free card/exemption is happening here, contrary to actual "common sense" and our policies. Don't you see how using the "common sense" redirect doesn't make sense? It's not common sense to spare him.

  WP:PUBLICFIGURE (which means "less" protection) applies to Trump more than to any other living human being, because he is the most notable and public (boastful, etc.) of any president, and therefore, in all justice, he should get less protection than anyone else. He lives that way, and should be treated that way. Although that would be the just thing to do, I'm just asking that PAG be applied to him in the same way as to any other other public figure, and that is not what's happening. A cabal of editors consistently wikilawyer to protect him. They IAR in the ridiculousness of their arguments to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  I'm somewhere between BullRangifer and JFG. "Policy requires inclusion" is a step too far in my opinion; on the other hand I've long felt that many of the editors whom I respect allow editorial judgment with loose and vague connection to policy to override reasoning with a clearer connection to policy. BullRangifer has a point: If editorial judgment can weigh that much, who needs policy?
  I feel that, if the instructions at WP:NHC were being followed, we should see some significant fraction of closes go against the numbers; but we don't. That concerns me since it directly affects the connection between article content and content policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this is impossible to discuss fairly in the space available here. It might fit at Presidency of Donald Trump, but I haven't looked enough to know for sure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, for now. I can't put much weight on a "worst ever" ranking when we're barely a year into his presidency. This sort of punditry needs to wait for the fuller passage of time, and solid reflection. TheValeyard (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Pile-on oppose In spite of my strong opinions on where Trump's presidency ranks out of the 45, the real grade it should get is incomplete for no other reason than it isn't over yet. There is no way to fairly judge his administration against completed ones, especially without any passage of time. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose too soon when he hasn't left office yet and perception of him is still highly subject to change based on his activity. Wait at the very least until someone else has been inaugurated before going into such detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:33, 25 March 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.

Additional material about untruthfulness

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.

---

We are discussing this edit. It did two things. Let’s discuss them separately. Should we expand the "False and misleading statements" section with additional material from PolitiFact and factcheck.org.? --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

We need to avoid cherrypicking primary sources that say he is a liar. So The best source would be a summary article or study about his F&MS. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Factcheckers are as good as it gets. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Right, but we need DUE WEIGHT as well. Otherwise we could just post a webcam of POTUS and watch him lie in real time. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

^{Now that was funny!! Atsme📞📧 23:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)}

There should be plenty of official videos in secondary sources about his lying. Anything over 30 seconds will have at least one lie. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• I oppose adding this additional material. What we have in the article now is factual, numerical evidence, and it comes from the most reliable possible sources (NYT and WaPo). The proposed additions are quotes rather than evidence, and while they add color to the paragraph, they detract from its neutrality. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Undue - serves no purpose. Come back in 4 years and see if he fulfilled his campaign promises. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  His campaign promises are not the issue. No politician is able to carry out all of his/her campaign promises, and some do the opposite of what they promised. That is not what people mean about Trump's dishonesty. They mean he habitually says things that are simply not true - things that are factually inaccurate, contradicted by the record, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  It's such a general statement by his detractors & the resistence - prolly the same ones who said he lied about Trump Tower being bugged and his phones tapped - or when he kept telling people there was no collusion. The point I was making is that the things that matter are whether or not a president keeps his campaign promises...the famous lies we can call-up from memory, like "Read my lips! No new taxes!", "I did not have sex with that woman" or "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." I somehow doubt such derogatory statements are included in their bios. smh ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - He lies autonomically. Let the press document this. Trying to add this here at this point in time will just result in lost hours of debate. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• No - reduce to summary and pointer - This is a bit WP:OFFTOPIC again, and if these go anywhere they should go to the Presidency article with what goes in this article becoming a summary of generic criticised by Fact-check websites and a wiki link to the Presidential article rather than all the quote farm details in both places. The opinion pieces are just not a significant action by or effect on BLP the life of Donald Trump, so simply do not belong here. They look like opinion articles to me anyway without the normally looked-for RS quality indicators or matching to each other, but they do have a general alignment between themselves and some modest WP:WEIGHT for the Presidency. Meh. Markbassett (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  I would oppose putting anything about dishonesty in the Presidency article. This has nothing to do with his presidency. It is about him personally, a character trait, a habitual action - and it long predates his presidency. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  MelanieN, while most of it does belong in this article, some mention also belongs in the presidency article, because it's a basic, defining, characteristic of his presidency (more than any other president), just as much as of his personality. "Trump is Nixon on steroids and stilts" (John Dean) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - you're really off today -- the text proposed starts "As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks" and is entirely during and about his presidency. SO a Presidency article item, not a personal life item. There is no text or cite to support the character assassination you are describing, just factual observations of reports from fact-checkers prominently say -- and it's unwise to go into character unless you're willing to include per NPOV that other folks say otherwise or that he's been faithful to campaign pledges and character -- you got exactly the same sort of person he was when he campaigned. Markbassett (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – This was settled by RfC long ago. The intensity and frequency of misleading statements by Trump has not changed much since he was elected. If anything, it has slowed down a bit. Some media will regularly run a fresh compilation of old and new "whoppers", that doesn't make them any more encyclopedic than they were last time. — JFG ^talk 05:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Add-on: I totally agree about including specific lies from this President, or any other political figure, that have had serious impact or relevance on world affairs (for example, Dubya's dubious justification for the invasion of Iraq), but I don't think there is much encyclopedic value to calling a particular politician a liar or a traitor. Almost all high-ranking politicians have been labeled that way at some point in their career, it just isn't the job of an encyclopedia to pass moral judgment on article subjects, living or dead (see for example how we bend over backwards to avoid calling notorious dictators exactly that). Readers can figure out for themselves how they would evaluate a person, by reading well-documented history of their deeds and misdeeds. — JFG ^talk 05:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right that it isn't Wikipedia's job to "pass moral judgment". It is our job to document how RS do it, and they do it abundantly. It is a policy violation to fail to do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  calling a particular politician a liar or a traitor. May I point out that we do not call Trump a liar or a traitor. We carefully avoid using the word lie or liar; we say "untrue" or "false" instead. That's because "lie" implies a deliberate misstatement which the speaker knows to be false, while untrue or false statements can also result from ignorance or misinformation. We report that he says a remarkable lot of untrue things, because Reliable Sources report that - and they say that his quantity and frequency of misstatements, and his persistence in repeating them even after debunking, are pretty much unprecedented. We do not speculate about whether they are lies (even though some Reliable Sources have used that word). And we have never countenanced any of the occasional suggestions to quote somebody or other calling him a traitor. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  I see nothing nearly that strong in wiki voice. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  In fact, see consensus #22 above which specifically says we do not say "lie" or "liar". --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry for being unclear. We say nothing nearly as strong as he says a remarkable lot of untrue things - his quantity and frequency of misstatements, and his persistence in repeating them even after debunking, are pretty much unprecedented - in wiki voice. So it's inaccurate to say that "we report that". Our wiki voice on the subject consists of one sentence in the lead: "His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false." Much weaker than what you said, and past tense. I do not propose a violation of or modification of #22. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)True, we only bring up the point about false statements in 4 different sections of the article, need to really drive it home. PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Since when do we allow a local consensus (#22) to trump policy? (I can't read it on my phone.) I hope it's referring to statements in wikivoice, and not being used to refuse to document quotes which use those words, because lots of very notable persons have said it, with evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  For your phone, #22 says: "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." I submit that serious Wikipedia editing can't be done from your phone if it (or Wikipedia's support of it) has that limitation. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I save the complicated stuff for home. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the sub-page that details would be included on? It may not exist due to the ease at which it would become a BLP concern. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Motion A clear consensus exists on a relatively simple matter that isn’t about changing Wikipedia's policies on how one chooses sources to cite, but is a straightforward issue about applying Wikipedia's current guidelines and whether the deleted paragraph was POV pushing or was bringing balance to the article by citing a seemingly biased source. I motion that this RFC be closed. Greg L (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - wildly different reasonings seem to wind up at the same conclusion to not include, do you want more than a couple days discussion or is it time for a WP:SNOW close ? Markbassett (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: We might as well snowball for oppose; interest in this issue has waned, and the chances of the community converging on a single reason—or set of reasons—for opposing inclusion of the paragraph is nil. So too is the chances a consensus will ever develop to restore the paragraph in question. Greg L (talk) 04:28, 27 March 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.

WP:Weight of Russia

Looking over the article, I think that Russia/Mueller need more WP:Weight. There is nothing in his presidency that has received more continued coverage throughout his term by WP:RSes. Yet the limited information in the article is hidden under a forth level header, which is under a third level header, named "Investigations." Moreover, the detail provided in the lede is too short, based on coverage by WP:RS coverage. I propose the following.

• 1. We bring all the information about Russia/Mueller under a second level header.
• 2. We expand the information currently in the article.
• 3. We expand the information currently in the lede and remove some of the information that is less important based on coverage by WP:RS.

-- Casprings (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to oppose most of this. 2 paragraphs on "Russian interference", 3 on the special counsel investigation, and a paragraph in "Foreign policy" is enough. The information in the lede probably could be re-written and improved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm more in less in agreement with Casprings; however, I feel like this is something that can be looked at as Mueller concludes his investigation and we know its outcome. The situation is very much in flux, and I think now is not the time to make such wholesale changes. One thing I very much disagree with is the notion that things are "hidden" under lower level headers. Headings are there to give titles to sections, and sections are used to logically contain content. We should not attempt to use headers as a way of altering the "weight" of content. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT appears to disagree. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (emphasis added). If one can give undue weight by prominence of placement, they can also give due weight by prominence of placement. I think we can agree that a Level 2 section is more prominent than a Level 3 section, and 3 more prominent than 4. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but I think it's more about how early it appears in an article, than the heading level. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The lead currently says "After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to continue investigating links or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian government in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 elections and related matters.". Are you suggesting an expansion to this part, or attempting to reorganize the whole article just so that stuff about Russia and Mueller is earlier? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest both. I think it should be a level 2 heading. It isn't a good fit where it is given that it predates his Presidency.Casprings (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Casprings: We bring all the information about Russia/Mueller under a second level header. Given that the first level headings are called Level 2 headings (Level 1 is the article title), perhaps you could clarify this part of the proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be a level 2 heading. In my view, given the amount of coverage, that is justified. Also, it is isn't a really good fit where it is given that is connections to Russia go back way before he became POTUS.Casprings (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Casprings, I suggest you try an experiment. I have done this several times, with good success. Actually edit the article in one big edit to make it the way you'd like to see it. Then save it and immediately self-revert. Leave good edit summaries which explain exactly what you are doing at each step. Then post that diff here and everyone can see what this actually looks like. "A picture is worth a thousand words." Such a test can be very convincing, and can also create a much better basis for further discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagree, the article should not be used for sandboxing. If you want to sandbox, use your sandbox. Remember to remove categories from the sandbox version. Advantages: No risk of disruption to the article, even for a few seconds. All the time you need to get it the way you want it, in as many separate edits as you need. If you don't have a sandbox (I don't remember whether that's an optional thing), User:Mandruss/sandbox3 is available. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss. No need to disrupt this article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with the above. Perhaps the first step is to come to consensus about rather this needs more Weight. Yes or no. If the consensus is yes, we can move on to the how. If no, then this can die.Casprings (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Casprings: If you really want to explore a one-section approach to the Russia/Mueller stuff, consider creating one in your own user space. If it works, you can bring it to the attention of the editors here. I personally think it is too early to attempt such a thing, but perhaps it will scratch an itch you might have. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• No. IMO a level 2 heading would be way, way UNDUE for this biography - which is supposed to cover his entire life. I think the current weight is enough, and the fact that it is scattered among several different main sections just reflects reality. If this issue becomes a major factor affecting his life - causing criminal charges or impeachment, for example - then it would assume a much more prominent place in his biography. But it would be CRYSTAL if not a BLP violation to expand it now on the chance that it might become more important later. --MelanieN (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would suggest that we don't over focus on one thing I suggested.Casprings (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not right now - I think the Russia/Mueller thing is multifaceted. It has so many angles and goes off on so many tangents, it would be impossible to tie them all together in one coherent section. It is possible this will change in the future (if, for example, it all led to the downfall of his presidency) but I think we have the correct approach at the moment. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We do have to be careful to not engage in WP:Synth. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I didn't suggest any form of synthesis. In fact, I said "it would be impossible to tie them all together in one coherent section." -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• No - not unless there's new evidence and not more speculation, editorializing and unsupported allegations which are..., well...meh. Most of what's in the article now about Russia belongs in the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, not in his bio. A new article that focuses on Russian interference in US elections may be warranted if we don't have one already. Now that we know they were tampering as far back as the Obama election those articles can be updated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You misread the source. It does not say there was tampering as far back as Obama's election (which was in 2012). It is about Obama's actions with regard to the tampering in the 2016 election. --MelanieN (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Seriously? The allegations against Trump are "meh" and by the way, it's Obama's fault? C'mon, dude! At least try appear interested in neutrality. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN I've posted links about it before, just added a new one, but here's one that goes back in time to support the others I've included and also showing it wasn't just about Trump. Lots of speculation as to Russia trying to influence elections - the candidates are what influence elections and the only influence is what the candidates do/have done to themselves, so it really does seem a bit of a stretch...unless they actually hacked the voting machines & changed votes but we've been assured that didn't happen. Anyway, here's a better link to show it's not just about Trump, and you were right about UNDUE. Enough already with Trump-Russia...it's much broader than this one campaign, or poor Hillary...she just made hacking easier with her unsecured servers, blackberries, iPads, etc. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

poor Hillary...she just made hacking easier with her unsecured servers, blackberries, iPads, etc Wrong again. None of the reported hacking or leaks involved Hillary’s own emails, or her own servers and phones. In spite of all the howling about her unsecured server, there’s never been any evidence that it was breached, and nothing has ever been leaked that came directly from her systems. This article notes that many individuals and organizations, both Republican and Democratic, were hacked and in some cases information was leaked. "The targets over the past two years have included a Who's Who of Hillary Clinton associates from her State Department tenure, the Clinton Foundation and her presidential campaign, as well as top Republicans and staffers for Republican candidates for president." "The hack has especially targeted individuals around Democratic nominee Clinton" (such as Podesta’s emails), also "individuals associated with the Clinton Foundation." This article describes hacking of associates, people around her. What the article DOESN’T say is that Hillary herself was ever hacked. No evidence of a breach of her own systems has ever been found, in spite of years of intensive investigating by Congressional committees and the FBI. Not the Clinton Foundation either - just the emails of individuals associated with it. I know this is off topic, but we need to keep the record straight and not let wrong information go unchallenged. After you have a chance to see this and respond, I will hat this part of the discussion as off topic. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Off topic

MelanieN - Elsewhere are minor reports - e.g. The Guardian, Forbes - that Hillary's private server was hacked, but it has little coverage since nothing much happened. If nothing else, the logic runs that if Russians were going to major efforts in the years before the election, why would they not take such an easy target? And yes, Hillary seems OFFTOPIC for a Trump BLP -- but I think for his BLP Russians in general are not due much. Markbassett (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC) (ec) MelanieN is right. Clinton's server was not hacked, and I'm not so sure we can assume that her server was "an easy target". The hackers seemed to target official servers, which were apparently the really "easy targets". We don't know if they knew about her private server (which Colin Powell helped her set up, in the same manner members of the Bush administration did it), or if they knew, but failed to penetrate it. We do know that they hacked both DNC and RNC targets, but only released DNC material. That's all consistent with what is alleged in the Trump–Russia dossier: that the Trump campaign conspired with the hackers, "with the full knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team"; planned for them to get the emails to WikiLeaks for "plausible deniability"; planned the exact timing for the leak of the emails during the DNC national convention (allegedly Carter Page's idea); and later paid those hackers and took measures to cover up the whole operation. Yes, those are the allegations, all of which are taken seriously by intelligence and are being investigated, and which can explain what actually happened. (Further evidence that it might be true is that Trump has denied it. ) Hopefully the Mueller investigation will bring more light on that situation, because we know he's investigating every allegation in the dossier, which has proved so reliable that it is used as the "road map" for the investigation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC) The hackers seemed to target official servers, Actually no. The hackers mostly did not target servers directly. They targeted email, through the much simpler device of phishing.[32] They send out a phishing email, and if the sucker clicks on it or responds, they've got him or her - and everyone he or she sends email to. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC) In a sense that's true, but that is the avenue used to get into the servers, which are the ultimate targets, or have a missed something? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer - so many errors there. First, at least the couple RS named did report her server hacked and mentioned the logic that it was an 'easy target' plus that she herself admitted to being spearphished like Podesta was. No, we do not "know" which if any things were done by Russians, we only know the reports. And yes, one migh speculate it consistent with the dossier and think Putin takes orders from Trump -- or equally well speculate that the dossier confirmed Clinton colluding with Russians and that the RNC emails were not leaked because they did not have the interesting wrongdoing that the DNC had. Just flip between cable channels to see either bubble reality. And no, Mueller has not said he's taking direction from Steele to control or limit his investigations, or see anything about the actual criminal charges and subpeonas in the dossier. But I think all of this is WP:OFFTOPIC for a biography article on Trump, and suggest it go see if the Russian interference article or the Presidency article suits. Please Melanie hat this section soon. Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC) MelanieN, I'm pleased that editors are giving more consideration to UNDUE regarding the Russia info. But no, I'm not wrong about Hillary. There are multiple RS that have published articles about the widespread hacking, and yes, Hillary's emails were targeted the same way the DNC was targeted, & other presidential candidates were targeted. WaPo and Forbes reported it in 2016. A NYTimes title reads "Hillary Clinton email was probably hacked experts say", and summarized "Nothing from Mrs. Clinton has surfaced. But that does not mean they were not stolen, only that they have not been made public." There's also the BBC, USNews, and CNBC, NBC News reporting that all candidates were targeted, Time, CBS News, HufPo, re: Podesta and Hillary emails. Don't hat this discussion - it's important for editors to see that it wasn't just about Trump-Russia. It was widespread hacking. Atsme📞📧 02:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Nothing from Mrs. Clinton has surfaced. But that does not mean they were not stolen, only that they have not been made public ... a line of argument that was once wonderfully parodied by C.S. Lewis: "The absence of smoke can be taken as evidence that the fire has been very carefully hidden." --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)  Shows the dichotomy between the way Clinton allegations were treated vs Trump allegations, particularly when choosing RS and the material used in WP. Atsme📞📧 04:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Huh? The difference between the way they were treated is because of EVIDENCE. The Republicans in Congress spent literally years trying to find any evidence of Clinton colluding or of her email server getting hacked or of classified information slipping out of her hands. They came up with nothing. That is why the difference. And that is the analogy in my quote, which you apparently didn't get: the NYT says there is no evidence her server was hacked, but then speculates it might have been anyhow. Where there's no smoke, there still must be fire? --MelanieN (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC) There is no dichotomy. You see it that way because you've got it backwards. RS and Wikipedia have got it right, and you don't like that. There are just the differences in POV between those who use RS and those tendentious editors who use fringe sources (including Fox News). It's that simple. That's what my message for fringe political editors is about. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC) You do realize that once an email has been sent, it can be captured without the original server being hacked? Emails are vulnerable, once they are sent. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• No - Casprings said "in his presidency" so it belongs there and not here. Or maybe in the articles specific to it. Unless it is an action by Trump or major effect on his life, it is a bit WP:OFFTOPIC for this WP:BLP. Also, repeating it over and over in N articles seems to be exceeding the due [[WP:WEIGHT]. Markbassett (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• No I count many paragraphs with a total of 28 instances of “Russia” or “Russian.” It seems sufficient. Greg L (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Ronny Jackson

Moved to Talk:Ronny Jackson

 – ―Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Except the later part relevant to this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need to explicitly state Jackson is a rear admiral? It doesn't seem relevant to the appointment, and the information can be found on Jackson's article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

We need it because there are unfair attempts to diminish Jackson´s credibility. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No, there aren't. Why are you so interested in puffing up Jackson's curriculum vitae? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's see, Jackson served as WH physician for the past 3 administrations - Bush, Obama & now Trump - but because he passed Trump as having good health, some think he's not qualified to lead? Hmmm...in a director's capacity, he led the WH Medical Unit, has overseen health care for the president’s cabinet and senior staff, was physician supervisor for Camp David. He was WH physician for 3 administrations, was appointed as president's physician for Obama. Did Trump not check with his FB-Twitter-WP followers to see if his choice was acceptable? The USA Today report seems balanced, and Business Insider does, too and by golly, so does the BBC - so what is the problem, exactly? The Vet Administration has failed miserably under what some may refer to as "qualified" individuals regarding past picks, but I see no need for WP to distinguish between who is or isn't qualified. NPOV it and all is well. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Armed forces service is not a unique qualifier for running the VA, it is not a military posting. ValarianB (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This edit by Zbrnajsem (talk · contribs) reverts challenged content, and so appears to violate the restrictions placed by Arbcom. I suggest the edit is self-reverted quickly in an attempt to avoid sanction. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Jackson has no executive experience at all. The VA employs tens of thousands of people and serves millions, so Jackson lacks the necessary qualification. But hey, anything to support the decisions of the Dear Leader, right? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection between Atsme's comment and improvement of this article. Should I move that too? AFAICT the only discussion that belongs here is Do we really need to explicitly state Jackson is a rear admiral? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking the same about the preceding comments. How ironic. My comments represent support to SAY WHAT RS SAY...which is what I consider improvement of the article vs OR, cherrypicking, or citing a single source that supports one's POV? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

What change are you proposing to this article? I can't see that in your comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Originally, the discussion related to this, but now I see it has been moved. Wow, the changes are faster than breaking news! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is a snowball's chance that any content about Jackson's appointment might be added to this single-page biography of Donald Trump, I apologize for my error in moving that part of this thread. I don't think there is. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

We should explicitly state that Dr. Ronny Jackson is a rear admiral. Why? Because that fact is a notable bit of information that rounds out one's understanding of the individual. More importantly, we follow the RS's, like The Washington Post, here who prominently mention the fact in several places in the article, including in the caption under one of the pictures. As mere wikipedians, it is beyond our purview to sit with furrowed brow and debate issues like puffing up Jackson's curriculum vitae. Departing from the RSs amounts to POV pushing. Restored. Greg L (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

(drive-by comment) If we're discussing his appointment as the VA secretary, it makes sense to include that he's a rear admiral. In the current mention of him acting as a physician, it's unnecessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with just focusing on his current position. There's a wikilink to his full bio that tells readers who he is/what he's accomplished without going into detail in Trump's bio. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Trump´s health

Any non-neutral or even slanderous change on the passus concerning the examination of the President´s health by rear admiral Ronny Jackson (as of 30 March 2018, 11:00 a.m. GMT) will be seen as a serious offence against the Civility restriction mentioned above (see WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES). The same applies to any further reverts of Ronny Jackson´s military rank as United States Navy rear admiral. There was no consensus on this so far, however it must be allowed to state this fact at the first mentioning of his name in the article. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It is very sad that User Objective3000 has not seen this warning, or he even disregarded it. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I think his rank should be left out of this bio. Anyone interested in Jackson's rank can click the Wikilink and read his bio.- MrX 🖋 11:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, belongs in his bio -- probably not here. Medical doctors are often given ranks that don’t fit normal definitions to increase their pay. I don’t think he led a squadron of warships. O3000 (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Zbrnajsem:, you need an explanation for how this works. You made an edit yesterday, I reverted it. Per the notice on the talk page ("All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)"), that is where the matte ends until you gain consensus on this talk page for your edit. You have now violated both that and the 1 revert per 24h. ValarianB (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

What matters more is the fact that the present wording ″physician Ronny Jackson praised Trump's health effusively at a press briefing″ violates the neutrality of Wikipedia and the above given WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES. Please consider the fact that Ronny Jackson is an officer of the United States Navy. It is not allowed to make remarks about him and his fulfilment of duties like those in the article. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

If you have an argument for a change, you are welcome to present it. But, claiming that we are not allowed to say something because it is about a Naval officer is not going to work. Look for reasons at WP:NPOV. O3000 (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, well, see WP:CRYBLP. Just saying "it's a violation!" doesn't actually make it so grant you immunity to edit-warring. Your claim that it violates NPOV to leave off his rank, or to note his effusive praise of a 74 71 year-old man's health was perfect and due to "incredible genes", borders on the farcical. ValarianB (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No, what you say is not valid. The whole matter concerns the examination of the health of the President of the United States. This matter is then about the ability of the President to fulfil his executive duties. So this is a highly political affair. You should understand it. In this sense, the above WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES comes into action. I fear you and some other editors misinterpret this completely. Besides this, the real age of Donald Trump is 71, and his age is of no importance for this discussion. Don´t come with such arguments. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Doc Ronny Jackson was functioning in his capacity as a physician when he examined and when he continues to care for POTUS. His rank within the military is UNDUE and we link to his bio article where this and other personal details can be found. This little paragraph is well-sourced and reflects mainstream RS description of POTUS health exam. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I, and several others here it seems, find your argument to be unconvincing. The characterization of Jackson's praise is cited, and could be cited further, e.g. Trump's physician offers glowing praise. The man's military rank has no bearing or relevance to Donald Trump's biography. ValarianB (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@ValarianB and SPECIFICO: As I said, you and others completely misinterpret the impact of your undue edits. Rear admiral Ronny Jackson is ″director of the White House Medical Unit, a unit of the White House Military Office responsible for the medical needs of the President of the United States, Vice President, White House staff, and visitors″. This implies a) his military rank is of great importance, b) any undue wordings concerning the results of his examination of the health of the President fall under the restrictions for this (and other) articles on the political affairs of the US. I am sorry, but you and other users continuously trespass against these restrictions. This must have consequences. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The White House Medical Unit has a staff of about two dozen people. It’s an important job. But, the fact that he is/was the Physician to the President is the more important aspect. As for your continuing threats of consequences, that’s not going to convince (or scare) anyone here and is not conducive to collaboration. O3000 (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Zbrnajsem has made yet another reversion of challenged material. Multiple violations of Arbcom restrictions by this user need to be addressed, I feel. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not me who really violates Arbcom restrictions. There are several other users who continuously violate them, including SPECIFICO, ValarianB and you, Scjessey. You have used your one possibility to make a revert of valid informations, exactly knowing that I am now only alone. But my arguments are superior to yours. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: As I have seen the text now, I can live with the last edit by SPECIFICO. So we leave this particular part of the article as it is, OK? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the consensus version. Please leave it alone and move on to some other matter of concern to you. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you forgot to add that he's "a very stable genius". 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Four reversions in a 24-hour period by Zbrnajsem now: diff1 (possibly debatable reversion), diff2, diff3, diff4. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Per the stuff above, I've filed a request for enforcement. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Does this editor need to be tucked into that as well? It seems that that reversion restored some of the edits that this Zbrnajsem character was edit-warring over. All of his additions should be rolled back until discussion concludes here. I am hesitant to revert myself, I'll leave it to an admin to decide. TheValeyard (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get admin attention unless you go ask for it. The AE complaint was closed with the temp block. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that looks like it may be a separate revert? I believe that language was first added 2018-03-29T12:41:18 by SPECIFICO, and this is a first revert of that change. I might be missing some intermediate edits that would change that though. I'd suggest discussing here to see if there is a consensus one way or another. Prodego ^talk 00:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. SPECIFICO's claim of "restoring the consensus version" is wrong, as she only reverted to her recently-modified version. James J. Lambden did revert to the longstanding stable text. Time for a real debate, if people really want to argue the merits of recent edits to the health section. In my opinion, none of those were necessary or due; the recent appointment of Jackson can and should be dealt with on his own article. — JFG ^talk 11:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

And the new version, which I crafted from more balanced sources (in order to overcome the recentism of the initial sourcing and article text) was hailed as the new consensus and was not challenged except by the POV blocked edit-warrior. I like to think of it not as "my" version, but as the baby Jesus version. Perfect and complete. The bit about undue mention of the recent appointment is rather bizarre, since nobody put any such text in the article. Straw man. SPECIFICO talk 13:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This whole topic amounts to POV pushing—back and forth—only with a pinky finger out as Wikipedians pretend to sip their editorial tea. The only proper way to do this is to look towards the RSs for guidance as to what is germane and what is not. But all I see is mere wikipedians pretending they are establishing *proper* editorial practices on how to deal with issues of presidential importance. It's a shame Wikipedia has degraded to such depths. Greg L (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

And what sources do you consider reliable? Fox News, InfoWars, Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow! That comment (and psychological projection) sure betrays your bias, BullRangifer. Holy smokes! What part of WP:RS seems to utterly confuse you?

If you bothered to read and comprehend what I wrote in my above post on 03:11, 30 March 2018 was that it would serve us well to follow the editorial practice of The Washington Post, which is an RS and is arguably quite liberal.

So please don’t once again attempt to employ your 9th-grade debate-class practices on me. As the saying goes about coming to a gunfight armed with a knife…

And you really should read and comprehend the position and points of others before running off and tilting at windmills. Otherwise you come across as you just did with that whopper of yours: You parse the world very simply into a bifurcated rule set: there are folks who agree with you and they are all smart-smart; and then there are the others who disagree with you and they must be ultra-conservative fanboys of Trump who quote Breitbart and the other examples you cited in your blather. Greg L (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Greg, I’m afraid that isn’t really a useful comment. You will need to provide specifics. O3000 (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Greg L: FYI, The Washington Post is a neutral reliable source, certainly from a Wikipedia point of view, not "arguably quite liberal" at all. "Quite liberal" would be The Nation, or The New Republic. Conservatives have now moved so far to the right, they now label mainstream media as "left" or "liberal" when that simply isn't the case. Foreigners like me view this absurd state of affairs with considerable amusement. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I love proper debate, Scjessey, for it can be resolved with objective facts. As to your last point (absurd state of affairs), I couldn't agree more.

As to The Washington Post being considered a neutral RS, it’s close enough for Wikipedia's practical purposes. But, when I wrote “arguably quite liberal,” I was perfectly correct; that “argument” is the whole reason our very own Wikipedia page mentioned this:

“ On October 21, 2014, the newspaper endorsed 44 Democratic candidates versus 3 Republican candidates for the 2014 elections in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. ”

…and is why we devoted an entire section called “Controversies” on the topic.

Nonetheless (arguably liberal bias or not), *I* cited The Washington Post as an example of how RS's handle various issues, which sees good reason to mention that Trump's doctor is a rear admiral in a photo caption (it's germane to better understanding his import).

You see, for unlike User:BullRangifer, who marches into this article and talk page with biases beyond comprehension and then tilts at all windmills he perceives must be Trump fan-boys whenever he perceives opposition to his POV pushing, I know an RS when I see one.

Like all proper wikipedians, I prefer to actually abide by Wikipedia's most fundamental of policies: looking towards the RSs for guidance. I eschew the thoroughly absurd phenomenon occurring on this page, where the wikipedian waitresses are practicing politics and try to feel like a big fish in a little pond as they pretend they are establishing paradigm editorial examples for the rest of the editorial world to follow. Greg L (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Post endorsed 44 Democratic candidates and 3 Republican candidates in 2014 because the other Republican candidates were awful, extreme examples of the species. This is a terrible way of judging bias. Most Democrats occupy the CENTER of the political spectrum, whereas most Republicans now occupy an area once considered "hard" right. If he were alive today, Republicans would consider Abraham Lincoln to be a "libtard", and so they struggle to understand that "neutrality" (what Wikipedia should be about) is not the same as "balance" (what Fox News Republicans think neutrality should be). On a separate subject, please use Wikipedia markup on this talk page, rather than HTML <p> tags. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

And "amusement" has moved so far to the right that it now means what formerly was called "alarm". SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that any editor who opposes inclusion/exclusion of material the same four or five editors want included/excluded eventually feel what Greg L just expressed. It's beginning to remind me a bit of WP:OWN. Ugh! Perhaps the remedy is to call an RfC for each proposed addition since we appear to have reached an impasse as evidenced by the belief that if a RS doesn't support a particular POV, they are deemed unreliable. NPOV does not mean we have to use specific RS. In fact, if the RS being cited has a particular POV, and another RS disputes it, then it is noncompliant with NPOV to exclude that info. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yet more aspersions. O3000 (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2018

Change "Donald John Trump" in body paragraph to "Donald John Trump, Sr." RAZ (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - Any change to the first paragraph requires prior consensus, per #Current consensus item 17. You won't get consensus for that particular change, but you are free to try to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)