Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #RFC: First sentence

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

Should we change the intro of this article to bring it in line with the other US presidents bio intro?

• ...is the 45th and current president of the United States, since 2017.

Do we need linking to Presidency of Donald Trump? GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey: First sentence

• Abort on the basis this RfC has not been created properly. Per WP:RFCST, it should be a "brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue." Instead, GoodDay has told us what should change and told us what we shouldn't have. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC) - RfC question has been rephrased. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Calm down. I've rephrased it into a 'question'. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As per the discussion further up. Since he is currently president, this is a different situation than former presidents. I also think it's just more useful to link to his presidency rather than the general concept. -- Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - As documented at #Current consensus item 17, the first sentence has been thoroughly flogged in recent years, with the last revisitation only two weeks ago. I think it's good enough. The main rationale given for this proposed change is conformity between presidents' BLPs, and there is nothing found in PAGs or other community consensus indicating that as a goal. I oppose that cookie-cutter approach, as it appears to serve a tiny minority of editors far more than it serves readers. No reader is going to be thrown for a loop if this article's first sentence has a different structure than those of other presidents' articles – if they even notice the difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other, but I oppose on the basis we have a consensus for the existing text and I see no reason why we cannot have its slightly differing language approach for the current officeholder. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - As we don't link to Presidency of... articles in the other aforementioned bios. Also, we show the years of service in the others. Like any hard-copy encyclopedia, we should have consistency in a series of bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, but this is not a hard-copy encyclopedia. We can, you know, edit stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  "We should do x" is a completely empty argument without the "why" we should do x. I'd be interested to know "why" it's really important to be like hard-copy encyclopedias in this way, when in many other ways we are happy (or proud) to be different. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  We can't accept sloppiness in the intro, which is what we now have. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  I've just looked again, and I see no sloppiness. Are you sure you're at the right article? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Are you sure you're at the right article? Quit it. PackMecEng (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Yes the intro should include President of the United States as what was consensus #17. The April 2020 discussion was *not* a consensus to eliminate the commonly included POTUS link, it was asking about potential alternative techniques to add a link and TALK mentioned to keep the POTUS. There was not an RFC or stated question to drop POTUS, so that should still be present as the explicit consensusifying. There wasn’t technically even an explicit ask to change consensus and add a link - it was just asking for potential means, and a later proposal might have been done. Perhaps “...is the 45th and current President of the United States, since 2017.“ Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Among the other stated reasons, see MOS:CURRENTLY, which discourages the use of that word. – Muboshgu (talk)`

  "Except on pages updated regularly". ―Mandruss ☎ 09:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  I still feel its good practice to keep it out of pages that are updated regularly, but it seems consensus is not with me on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. ~ HAL333 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone above as well as per the consensus to have the current text. –Davey2010^Talk 19:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus to have the current intro. This RFC is what will determine which version gets a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there absolutely was a consensus. We all discussed it in your absence and agreed to the change. An RfC is only necessary in a deadlocked discussion, which was not the case. This RfC is your attempt to overturn an existing consensus because you weren't happy. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A tiny number of editors changing a long-kept version, after a few days of discussion? No consensus there. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The change was not made by a tiny number of editors. Most or all of the editors who participate on this page saw the change, saw the discussion, and chose not to object to the change on the basis of the discussion. Many did not participate in the discussion, but nevertheless contributed to the consensus by their silence. The consensus list entry #17 was updated without objection. You were not here to participate in the discussion, nor around to object to the change on this basis of it, and you can't drop in ten days after a change and cry "no consensus". This concept has been reaffirmed many times at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We obviously disagree on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but don't confuse that with having equally valid positions. No one can force you to respond to reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I see you unhatted your personal comment eroniously citing TPG.[1] Sorry but no it is commenting on the contributor and not on their content and should be hatted as off-topic personal commentary. Stuff like No one can force you to respond to reason are not helpful and if you want to be taken seriously you should probably stop making them. Quit badgering people that disagree with you. PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, PackMecEng, but your comment is way out of line. So far, your only contributions to this thread have been to criticize Mandruss, so maybe you need to heed your own advice. GoodDay missed the consensus party and is now abusing the RfC process (which is really only meant for deadlocked discussion) to try to overturn the will of the editors who participated in the original discussion. Mandruss is right to point that out, and GoodDay's refusal to accept the normal Wikipedia process here is the troubling aspect of all this. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We have been having a discussion about it on my talk page, you are welcome to stop by. I do not plan on continuing here unless asked to. PackMecEng (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support The starting year of his presidency is an important piece of information that should be in the lede, but currently it is not even mentioned there. Given that other presidential articles have term years in the first sentence, then I don't understand why the present article doesn't have it. The infobox has this information, but per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". The starting year of Trump's presidency should be added to the first sentence and it would be of use to the reader who probably, like me, wonders when did Trump start his presidency. Thinker78 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support As we write for an international audience, better we link to the page that discusses what a US President is rather than just to the one about this President.--MONGO (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The link was discussed (see consensus #17) and the agreement was to change it to the "Presidency of Donald Trump" page. Also, point of grammar, "since" requires the use of present perfect, i.e., "has been." tempted, but nah Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose/Abort per current consensus item 17. This matter was recently discussed and satisfactorily resolved, and it is irresponsible to have an RfC that does not link to the extremely relevant context of the prior discussion in the opening statement. Nothing has changed in the past month that would require revisiting this so soon. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Was not resolved at all. A tiny number of editors decided to change #17 among themselves & after only a few days. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – Linking to Trump's specific presidency is more useful to readers than linking to the generic article about what a U.S. president is. — JFG ^talk 06:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion: First sentence

• Seems an oops. The April discussion asked about possible ways to add, not about removal. There wasn’t even an agreement *to* add, it just was asking for methods. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• @GoodDay: For this RfC to have any validity, you need to at least refactor to link to the April discussion in the question. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You can link to that 'short discussion' if you like. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Weird change.

Is this vandalism?[2] FollowTheSources (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this was vandalism. I have reverted this change. JLo-Watson (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Personal image" subsection; change to Consensus item 39

I had attempted to add this subsection:

Personal image

Since running for president, Trump's temperament and mental status has been a regular topic of public discussion. Trump has responded by saying that he has a "great temperament" and is a "very stable genius". A 2020 Pew Research Center survey found that most Americans would describe Trump as "self-centered".

Sources

While this would be a change to Consensus item 39, "Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health", I do not think it goes against the rationale of the relevant RfC close discussion, because this section does not describe Trump's mental health itself (besides Trump's self-description as "very stable"), it merely informs the reader of this very noteworthy story about his public image. There is no "armchair diagnosis", and per WP:WEIGHT "we should include a paragraph just because of the sheer volume of coverage." We could also include more about his personal image similar to George W. Bush#Cultural and political image. Thoughts? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Removed last sentence from proposal as UNDUE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea..it`s relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:D153:56BA:8530:2D8F (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we would need another RfC to overturn Consensus item 39. Most of the material you are proposing was rejected then. I don't think this would add anything to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yuck, this 'mental health' again. Dubious to try in this area, it's not exactly a BLP event or choice, but certainly not this proposal. This one doesn't have the prominence of the earlier items that have been ruled out, and if we're not allowing "mental status" section of armchair diagnosis from professionals why would we seek it from non-professionals ? Just to be clear in WP terms, this appears to be an WP:OR assemblage of stuff, which isn't a coherent set of parts and is WP:UNDUE as given -- as in I'm not seeing the poll shown to have much relative WP:WEIGHT. And not a valid psychological opinion per WP:MEDRS or WP:PSCI. Look, if you want to discuss personality, you're going to have to keep it limited to conveying the POVs about it positive ones too, and also not wander into manufactured things or terms like "mental status". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree that the poll would be UNDUE without also adding positive perceptions of his personality (which I suggested by referencing George W. above). However, I feel the rest is due. "Mental status" is the term used in the first reference, the APA news source which was discussing the Goldwater rule as the country was first getting "swept up in media speculation about the mental status of" Trump.[3] The APA news used "mental status" again a year later reporting that "psychiatrists have publicly offered their views on the mental status of the 45th president."[4] The opinions themselves are not being discussed in my proposed version, just the fact is that this is a huge story about Trump's image. Notice that this is all I'm suggesting we say about the story itself: "Since running for president, Trump's temperament and mental status has been a regular topic of public discussion." Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph of this version is the last information we had in the article about Trump's mental health. This information is materially different than what I am suggesting. There we had actual diagnoses listed. My proposal merely acknowledges that this noteworthy story exists. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We could also add something about his personal image as the "embodiment of achievement",[5] only with a higher-tier and more positive RS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

He also has a reputation as a "straight shooter" not worried about political correctness.[6]  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya, RE: personal image: if you propose to add a few cherry-picked opinions like “achiever” and “straight shooter”, why not a few more generally held opinions like “bully”[7] [8] [9] or “childish” [10][11] ? Trying to characterize his personality under the title of “personal image” is simply not going to be possible. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Melanie, I don't appreciate your attitude. I'm sure if we are professional we can summarize his public persona. Yes, "bully" and "childish" are popular descriptions of his perceived personality. Those words help as a starting off point for brainstorming. Those words are judgmental versions of other descriptions, such as "lacking emotional intelligence", "uninformed", "aggressive", or the example from the Pew poll, "self-centered". But, "the embodiment of success" is the public image many sources have said he has successfully cultivated for himself. Sources also described his appeal to voters as someone who "tells it like it is". We don't censor the encyclopedia because topics are difficult. I'm sure we can address everyone's concerns. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, you participated in the relevant RfC; what are your thoughts on these changes to address what had been previously opposed?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I am not in favor of including anything about Trump's mental state whatsoever. Even high quality sources that discuss the matter are based mostly on speculation and armchair diagnoses, and it just doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I oppose this addition, for two reasons. One, I still oppose writing anything about his supposed mental state (I have my own opinion on the subject, but IMO none of that kind of speculation belongs here). I don't believe we've ever done that for other presidents. Even when there is a whole article, like Public image of George W. Bush, we talk about his intelligence but not his mental health. Basically, I reaffirm the consensus statement as it stands. Two, it really adds nothing to his biography to say "there has been discussion about his temperament and mental status" and "this is what he says about himself". Thank you for striking the public opinion poll. If we're not allowing analyses from mental health professionals, we should certainly not post the results of popular polls. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Melanie, I'm hearing what sounds like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments. Please cite policy reasons for your opposition; the policies cited in the RfC close are not violated with this text. The relevant policy here is WP:NFRINGE. "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines", or for a topic within an article, WP:WEIGHT guidelines. Similar information is included about Hillary Clinton in her presidential campaign article: "Despite this letter [from her physician], rumors and conspiracy theories concerning Clinton's health proliferated online. In August 2016, Trump questioned Hillary's stamina and Sean Hannity called for Clinton to release her medical records, fueling these theories."[12] And as for the poll, that was not an "analysis" of Trump's mental health; it was a public opinion poll about his personality and temperament, i.e., his public image. I did not remove it because it did not represent the opinions of experts; I removed it because including that opinion alone created a WP:BLPBALANCE problem. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't throw around cheap accusations like WP:JDL. Reaffirming consensus is not JDL. If you want more policy reasons, just ask. I oppose it because 1) IMO it obviously violates BLP to talk, or speculate, or report that other people are speculating, about a person's mental health absent any actual evidence. BLP overrules FRINGE by a mile. And 2) we don't do this for other people even when there has been public speculation. I already cited GW Bush, where there is an entire article about his public image but does not say anything about his mental health. For an example on the other side of the political spectrum, look at Joe Biden; there have been many attempts to claim that he is "losing it" but they are not mentioned in the article. Some of us have worked to keep them out. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Melanie, please be civil. Like I said, I don't feel your arguments are policy-based; that is my understanding of WP:JDL, but I could be wrong. It is not a violation of BLP because we would only "report that other people are speculating" about someone's mental health with evidence that they are in fact speculating. 2) sounds like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but George Bush is not a comparator here; as far as I know his mental health has not received coverage in RS. I referenced George Bush only to show an example of a "Personal image" subsection. Obama's image section is less personal: Barack Obama#Cultural and political image Joe Biden is also WP:OTHER, and obviously the weight is quite different here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolya Butternut (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You asked for my policy based reasons. I gave them. You disagree. You apparently either think citing BLP is not a policy based reason, or that BLP doesn't apply to what you are proposing to do. I think it does. So let's move on and see what other people think. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, does my proposed text above avoid the policy problems discussed in your RfC close? Note the sourcing published by the APA itself. I wonder if we were to consider the hypothetical of a notable individual who is 100% of the time identified with the perception of having mental illness, what would Wikipedia do in that situation? My thought is that we would not try to inform readers about his mental health itself; we would inform readers about this aspect of his life story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering that the very first source in the proposed addition focuses on the Goldwater rule (which was the subject of extensive debate last time), I find little substantial difference between this version and previous versions. Speculating on a person's mental health is a BLP issue. If folks wish to hold another RfC, they are free to, as consensus can change. Still, I think without new and better sources, it would only be an attempt to re-litigate. As I said in my close I think there could be some carefully worded addition at some point in the future. I don't think this addition is carefully worded enough, and I think it doesn't provide DUE weight. I think a more solid version should be work-shopped prior to any new RfC. Such a version probably needs to be paragraph length, and summarize a good dozen or two sources. However, my viewpoint should not be the overriding factor here. My close was merely a summary of the arguments presented at the RfC, and reflected a very, very difficult discussion. Most importantly: my close summarized that folks felt we could not create a neutral, BLP conforming paragraph given the sources available. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I am trying to understand your interpretation. The RfC discussion about the Goldwater rule seems to center on whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to use medical opinions from professionals who violate their own professional standards. The APA obviously is not violating the Goldwater rule by reporting that the media is discussing Trump's mental status, so this addresses the concerns raised in the RfC discussion about the Goldwater rule. The previous version was meant to inform about his mental health itself, and it included diagnoses. I am not proposing we say anything like, "according to Dr. Bandy Lee, Trump is dangerous". I am proposing that we either say something about his public image or we say something about this ongoing media event in his life. We may have a dozen or more sources between the Vox video and WaPo meta-stories. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The last version focused on issues of direct speculation, but the overall conversation was about whether or not to mention it at all. My close and reading of consensus was on a basis of no inclusion whatsoever. However, I'm not against a new RfC to see about inserting this paragraph. I just think it currently goes against the last RfC, and thus would need support for inclusion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I understand if you don't want to stick your neck out, but I note that you did not directly answer my questions.  Yes, I know your close found consensus for no inclusion whatsoever, but I would ask that you acknowledge that your close does not give policy reasons against the text I am proposing.  You don't have say my proposal is consistent with policy, but I would like you to say that your close has not addressed that policy question.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Well the close and discussion weren't dealing with the text you suggested. However, I do think the close tackled the policy issue: any paragraph about his mental health would need to be carefully written to give WP:DUE coverage and avoid WP:BLP issues. I don't think the current paragraph does that, it is hard to balance such a controversial issue in two sentences. The replies by Trump are cherry picked, and don't actually make the addition any more neutral. But, as a closer, I can't single-handedly approve or deny your addition. Bottom line: if you want to include it, I think you'll need another RfC, as tortuous as that may be. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, Yes, a new RfC will be required, but I don't want the new one to be dismissed by the old close, that's why I'm asking for more interpretation. Do you agree my proposed text does not violate WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI? Lastly, can you share your opinion on why the proposed text does meet NPOV.  What about simply, "In response to questions raised about his temperament and mental status, Trump has described himself as a 'very stable genius'", as the only text referring to his mental status?  That is the most famous and oft-repeated quote by Trump about the subject. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

How come is there no mention of Trump's Mafia connections & friendship with Roy Cohn?

Why and how is there no mention of one of Donald Trump's most influential and important associates, the Mafia lawyer, Roy Cohn, in this article about a New York metropolitan area real estate and Atlantic City Casino developer? Is this article written by acolytes of Donald Trump? Why would such a large omission be permitted by the reigning editors of Wikipedia that control this article? While there is superficial information on some of Trump's casino activities, there is no mention, at all, of this well-publicized connection with Roy Cohn, and his current methodologies that Cohn taught to Trump that have emerged as characteristic traits of Trump's behavior and his business and political strategies... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Rest assured this article is not written by the Donald's acolytes, but rather by rampant anti-Trumpers. Cohn acted for Trump, and for Mafiosi, and he also prosecuted the Rosenbergs and worked with McCarthy. Lawyers act in many roles and shouldn't be tarnished by guilt by association. This article is already overblown and can't mention every association Trump has had in his long and varied career. There is shamefully little here about wrestling and beauty pageants. Cohn and the Mafia are already mentioned in Legal affairs of Donald Trump and there is more information about Trump's casinos in Business career of Donald Trump. If you have more well-sourced information please add it where appropriate.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Rest assured this article is not written by the Donald's acolytes, but rather by rampant anti-Trumpers. Give it a rest, Jack. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"This is but one in a long list of stupid things Trump does (or at least says) daily." - Scjessey, 2020. I'd say Jack has his merits. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: Jack cast aspersions on fellow editors, which is against policy. I simply stated the obvious, which is not. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. Jack, take your foot off the gas pedal. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Jack Upland Cohn isn't really relevant as BLP. But it's a a bit off the thread to mention that the article is biased -- yes, it is strongly biased, mostly written by critics, and heavily based on sources that are critics. But those are NPOV and RSN concerns, and ... really I don't think there is a good venue to address it, but this thread is just an example of the material and not a means for solving it all. A separate thread to discuss POV or bias might be suitable, but that seems to just evoke heated denialism. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe you just advised Jack that it's pointless to discuss article bias in this thread and then proceeded to do just that. You could have said the same thing at User talk:Jack Upland. Give it a rest, Mark. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss more precisely, I think I said three separate items -- perhaps you can add something relevant to the thread, or recommend an approach for the bias concern.

(a) Cohn isn't BLP relevant;

(b) Bias is off this thread's topic, although I do agree bias exists and the thread topic is an example of it; and

(c) Bias and POV could more properly be a separate thread topic, but I don't really think that works or have any good approach.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett and Jack Upland, focus on content, not on editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu think I just did that - (a) Cohn isn't BLP relevant content; and (b) re a general content bias concern - agreed but while this thread may be an example of it, that isn't the thread topic -- and I had no great redirect. Muboshgu, if you have a good means of detection and addressing of bias, redirect Jack as needed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, you need a redirect too. Anything else you say gets lost when you say the article is biased -- yes, it is strongly biased, mostly written by critics, and heavily based on sources that are critics, demeaning all of the regular editors of this page without bringing up a single instance of bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu This still is not the thread for that, and since you didn’t mention any suggestions for the requested means of measuring article bias and addressing same, then we’re still without a redirect for Jack. Ta ! Markbassett (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the talk page is where article improvement should be discussed, I decided to look for some sources connecting Cohn and Trump. There may be some things that can be added, neutrally of course.[13][14][15][16][17] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I was merely replying informatively to the OP. Neutrality is always relevant. I don't understand what the fuss is about.Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Should Trump's ingestion of hydroxychloroquine be added?

I mean, Trump's an overweight (or "morbidly obese", to put it in Pelosi's words), old person with a history of heart disease. His ingestion of hydroxychloroquine is pretty significant, isn't it? Thanoscar21 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not in this article, which is a one-page account of an entire life. Maybe in one or more of the pandemic articles. I note that this article says nothing resembling Trump's an overweight (or "morbidly obese", to put it in Pelosi's words), old person with a history of heart disease – nor should it. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Not yet, little here but trivia and a mess - thanks for asking, but give things like this a 48-hour holding period to let more facts or WEIGHT emerge and often they just blow over. Ignore that Pelosi falsely stated "morbidly obese" as that just isn't important. Do not get into the mess of details over anecdotal or studies of Hydroxychloroquinine and Zinc, as that's just not BLP material. There seems just a little tidbit in all this, if anything, for BLP. That Trump has consulted with the White House doctor and has been recently been taking hydroxychloroquine and zinc as preventive measures seems a bit relevant to BLP - as it is a personal choice and is getting mentioned in press such as Daily Mail, The Hill and Daily Telegraph. But give it a day or three for things to become clearer. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

At this point, we don't even know if he didn't just make it up on the spot. O3000 (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This is but one in a long list of stupid things Trump does (or at least says) daily. We can't cover it all, and I am not in favor of covering this one. Obviously that will change if it kills him. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist

Is this sentence actually WP:DUE for the lead? The body yes, but the lead?? If it is to remain in the lead it would seem that it should at least be re-worded to "Some of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist". This would more accurately reflect the sources. Also, of all the crap Trump says only a miniscule percentage could actually be characterized as racial/racist so to have wording like "many" makes no sense, especially for the lead. Hoekwind (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It just means that "Trump has made many comments and taken many actions which have been characterized as...". But that's wordy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

See #Current consensus item 30 and the discussions linked there. Not linked there are the discussions that failed to reach a consensus to modify that consensus. This issue has received enough attention and there is no reason to revisit it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Photo of Reagans and Trumps with King Fahd

The photo in question – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The photo is pretty clearly an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royalty through the use of a photo taken at a White House dinner hosted by Reagan, to which Trump was merely attending. In fact he's hardly in the photo, standing awkwardly in the back. A reversal of this photo to the former photo of Trump merely meeting Reagan is appropriate. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump is CLEARLY meeting with Fahd in this image. His wife is literally shaking Fahd's hand in the shot. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, Ivana is shaking Fahd's hand, while Donald, Ronald, and Nancy watch on. Where you get the idea that this is an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royalty I don't understand, especially since we have so many other juicy details (first foreign presidential trip, the arms deal Pompeo tried to rush through, etc.). That being said, it is Ivana and Fahd in the foreground with Trump in the background. Shouldn't Trump be more prominently featured in a picture on his page? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The juicy details you are touting are related to Trump's presidency, this is a photo from the mid-1980s. Even discarding that, when Trump's hardly in the photo itself, how is this in anyway a good fit for his biography page? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Trump's hardly in the photo..." - I can clearly see his entire person, and I can clearly see he is involved in the greeting process. I would argue the image is flattering to Trump, as it shows him engaging with world leaders, bolstering his claim of "experience" in such matters. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Him standing at the back of a meet-and-greet is far from bolstering his claim of "experience". Deadpan snark aside, this is a BLP violation and needs removal. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation. Just saying it is does not make it so. Cite the actual part of the policy that backs up your claim or drop the stick. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're done aggressively dissenting with me and telling me to drop the stick, take a gander at BLP#Images whose concern for an image's potential misuse of out-of-context situations is exactly the issue I'm taking up here. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Allow me to aggressively dissent with you. What the image portrays (and pardon me for applying life experience here) is Ivana and Donald Trump moving from your right to your left shaking the hands of Ronald, Fahd, and Nancy. The camera shutter happened to be tripped while Ivana was shaking Fahd's hand. Trump, being the gentleman that he is, allowed Ivana to go first, but that hardly puts him "at the back of a meet-and-greet". We're sorry the photographer wasn't on Trump's side of the lineup, but we do the best we can. This is hardly "out-of-context" when the context is Donald Trump's life (the subject of this article). If you honestly think you have a BLP issue here, take it to WP:BLPN, but stop accusing Wikipedia editors of deliberately trying to smear Trump or we'll see you at a different noticeboard. Clear enough? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I never accused anyone of deliberately trying to smear Trump, don't puff out your chest and threaten me with action for going against what you personally want this article to be. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Cool down, folks! — JFG talk 06:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The photo is pretty clearly an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royalty. As we've seen, that is "pretty clear" to no one but you; in fact every editor who has commented about that so far has indicated that you were completely off base with that. Use whatever word-quibbles you like, but you accused editors of bad faith with no evidence but a photo and little or no knowledge of this article's editors. Doing that repeatedly would certainly be actionable at an article under discretionary sanctions. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC) As we've seen, that is "pretty clear" to no one but you; in fact every editor who has commented about that so far has indicated that you were completely off base with that. How does me expressing a minority viewpoint completely invalidate my argument? Why don't you start your noticeboard to get me banned from here, since you find my mere existence here so heinous from the outset. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Yes. Assumption of bad faith is "heinous from the outset", particularly in a heated subject area like Donald Trump. If you really think that was nothing more than "a minority viewpoint", you are clearly tone-deaf as to the meaning of WP:AGF. When you haven't a leg to stand on, your best move is to sit down. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Maybe you should practice what you preach and not fan the flames of conflict, but by all means do respond with another platitude. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s hard for me to figure what this picture - showing barely-visible private citizen Trump and his wife in a receiving line in 1985 - adds to the article. It has nothing to do with the section where it is included, namely “Wealth”. We already have a picture of Trump as president with the Saudi king in 2017; that’s far more appropriate and relevant, and it shows Trump prominently instead of in the background. I say we delete this one. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. I don't see any BLP issue here. It's just a lousy photo in an article that already has plenty of photos. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I assumed it was more about showing Trump with Reagan, rather than Fahd. Honestly, I don't recall who put the picture in there, why it was put in, or when it happened. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The article has an abundance of images of Trump as president (many of them largely redundant with others). It needs more images pre-presidency, not less. The Presidency article is that way. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This photo wouldn't belong in the Presidency article either. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that it would. The point is that this article places too much emphasis on his presidency, and images are part of that over-emphasis. We certainly don't need to make the problem even worse by eliminating one of the few pre-presidency images simply because it's not a great picture of Trump or because it's poorly placed. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Then please propose (or simply add) some better pictures of Trump pre-presidency. He was constantly in the public eye, there must be hundreds. Something illustrating his TV show, or his wrestling connection, or yes, a picture with Reagan. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. For your browsing pleasure: [18] -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Is that a requirement for opposing removal of this image? I don't see why they should be linked. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you accept replacing it with this image? It shows Trump meeting Reagan in the White House in 1987. Same era, same look, shows how he was prominent and a mover-shaker even then. Look, I'm not against showing him in his pre-presidential days; I'm for it. I just don't think we should have lousy pictures in the article unless they illustrate something vital and there is no other way to illustrate it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I count eighteen images 2016–present. Same (relatively short) era, same look. Why not both? We could do with more variety than two photos of Trump in a tux within 3 years of each other, but that's a separate issue from removal of the image that is the topic of this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Replacing? No. It's a (presumably dime-a-dozen) event for donors, President Ronald Reagan Shaking Hands with Donald Trump at a Reception for Members of The "Friends of Art and Preservation in Embassies" Foundation in The Blue Room. First time I even heard of the foundation but then I don't have any spare $50,000 steel sculptures cluttering up the house. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Who is for it and who is against?

Interesting discussion, but I can't really tell who is arguing to keep this photo and who is arguing to remove it. Let's keep on discussing above, but I can't tell the players without a scorecard. Let's see who is saying what. Who knows, maybe it will turn out we are really all on the same side. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Replace it with a comparable but better quality picture, like the one I linked above. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for now. There aren't many nice alternatives, and I am persuaded by the argument Mandruss made about the need for more such images, rather than less. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove I'm with Melanie. It's clearly not a BLP violation to have a picture of Trump with Fahd and the Reagans at the White House in the 1980s. I agree that it's more flattering to Trump than anything else. But, that photo would go better on Fahd's article, or Ivana's. We should be using photos that have more focus on the subject of this article. Also, it's not clear why that photo is in the "Wealth" section. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep There is no reason to remove it, it does not violate any rules nor is it biased Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Replace with something where he is in the foreground. O3000 (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Replace -- MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove or replace – It does not focus on Trump, and it's irrelevant to the wealth section. — JFG ^talk 06:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The image was added—uncontested until now—to the "Wealth" section on October 18, 2019, along with a picture of Trump and Dennis Rodman in the "Apprentice" section. It didn't replace a picture of Trump with Reagan, and the hypothesis that it's an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royalty is pure speculation. (Why would we even need such an attempt when we have the "orb" picture in the Foreign policy section?) "Wealth" is as good as any section to show Donald and Ivana Trump in the reception line of the state dinner then-President Reagan hosted for Saudi King Fahd on February 11, 1985. It's a picture from the National Archives, listed unter the title "State Visit of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia State Dinner Receiving Line with Ivana Trump and Donald Trump in East Room." Trump and wife were guests. The Reagan Library has a video of the dinner on Youtube. At 23:10, you can see Ivana Trump (blond hair, bare shoulders, dark dress with sash) seated at a table. If the camera had panned a little further to the right, it would have shown Donald Trump. When was the last time any of us got to attend a state dinner for a visiting head of state - or had a spread of our opulent 1985 abodes featured in the Architectural Digest? The article features pictures of Trump's star on the Walk of Fame and of a bunch of building's that had his name on them at one time or another. Any of them are better candidates for removal. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is the definitive argument for keeping the image, at least until a better example can be found. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:List of actor-politicians

add a category List of actor-politicians Aero44 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Dubious at best. Perhaps being elected president allows one to be called a politician, but "cameo appearances in eight films and television shows" does not make them an actor. But I'm not familiar with the category; can you show precedent for such liberal use of the word actor in that category?

I am converting this from an edit request to a normal discussion, since edit requests are only for uncontroversial changes. In the future please use the "New section" link at the top of this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell it is a list article not a category. So inclusion on the list would have to be done over there. PackMecEng (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Wait I found it Category:Actor-politicians, sorry about that. PackMecEng (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Missed that. The same editor added Trump to the list article today, but I'll stay out of that. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

He's not an "actor", he's a "reality TV personality". Not the same. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

He is an actor; he's played a character with his name,[19] which is different than his roles where he is credited as "self".[20] Additionally, he has been credited as Waldo's Dad, and VIP patron. Clip of his cameos here. Trump is a Screen Actors Guild member.[21] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

IMDb, which is not a reliable source btw, seems to have all of the TV show and movie appearances under "actor" and his late night TV appearances as "self". Yet, he's never "played" anyone but himself. Take Home Alone 2, for instance. That's a clear cameo role, that IMDb lists under "actor". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The only argument against categorizing him as an actor is WP:DUE, correct?  It is irrelevant that most of his acting roles have been playing himself.  You know how Bill Murray didn't really die while filming Zombieland?  That's because he was acting; it's irrelevant that he was playing himself. "Cameo" does not mean "not acting", unless you can find a source.  But Trump wasn't even credited as himself in The Little Rascals; he was credited as "Waldo's Dad".  One reason you knowThe Little Rascals isn't a documentary is that Trump doesn't really have a son named Waldo.[22]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Koyla. Not categorizing Trump as an actor simply due to most of his roles relating to Trump portraying himself is superficial and irrelevant. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That being said, Trump is not may not be notable as an actor, and figures "not professionally known as actors should not be included" in the category. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump is not an actor. If anything, at best, Trump is a reality tv host. I've not found any reliable source that says playing yourself on a tv show is "acting." I've tried to find reliable sources that describe which of the 5 "acting techniques" Trump uses and came up empty. Trump should not be included. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you found any sources that say playing yourself in a fictional movie isn't acting?  You won't.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh that's a great litmus test! Ya' know, I haven't found any sources that say Trump isn't a prodigy in mathematics either, but since he can sign his name on checks with numbers on them, should we go ahead & put him in that list too? Lol! BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

An odd statement. Have you found any sources that say playing yourself in a fictional movie is acting? You won't find that either. Read the second paragraph at Acting and tell me how closely that describes Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOURCE Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEANTASASOURCE. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

What would you accept as a source?  It would take some effort to find the question directly addressed, but it's so BLUESKY I don't understand the disagreement.  I need a source to say that Muhammad Ali was acting in the film of his autobiography?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, Bill Murray in Zombieland was terrific acting. Trump just gave Macaulay Culkin directions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

So...Trump isn't an actor because he's a bad actor?  I don't get it.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the oil in my car. To call me an auto mechanic would be an insult to all auto mechanics. Ultimately (in my most humble opinion) readers benefit more from more selective categories than from less selective ones. Besides, what Scjessey said below. This is moot. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Bingo. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

But Wikipedia editors who read this discussion will benefit from accuracy.  Trump has acted in films; he has performed as an actor; what he has done in films is acting, as supported by RS  That he is not skilled or notable as an actor does not change that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)  

He does have some notability as an award winning actor.[23] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

All this discussion above is basically moot. Per WP:COPDEF, "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics." Trump's status as an "actor" is most certainly not a defining characteristic; therefore, he should not be categorized as such. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Works for me ―Mandruss ☎ 20:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think any reliable sources call Trump an "actor", let alone it being a defining characteristic. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think Muboshgu hits the nail on the head here. If we don’t have several secondary sources calling him an actor, then we shouldn’t describe him as such. I’m not opposed to his brief cameos being described a such in the article, but I’m fairly sure those sources don’t exist which describe him as an actor. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we all agree it would be UNDUE to call him an actor, but where we disagree is whether he has acted in films.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we all agree it would be UNDUE to waste more editing time on this very, very minor issue. I don't care whether or not Trump appears in the list article mentioned at the top of this section (there are plenty of sources supporting his inclusion there), but I definitely think Trump should not be categorized as an actor. These views are consistent with policy. Little more needs to be said, and I recommend we wrap this up now. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya, would you respond to Scjessey's comment about WP:COPDEF? I'm not clear whether you believe acting is a defining characteristic of Trump, you don't understand the meaning of "defining characteristic", or you don't care about following category guidelines. Trump plays golf, but he is not in any category calling him a golfer. Why? Because golfing is not a defining characteristic of Trump. He is in quite a few categories that he shouldn't be in per COPDEF, but the existence of bad stuff is never an excuse for more bad stuff, and to make it one only results in a snowball-effect proliferation of bad stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)