Talk:Donald Trump

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92.

Open RfCs and surveys

• #RFC on use of Liar and Lie
• #Muslim ban or travel ban?

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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

Multiple WP:RS call Donald Trump a Liar.

The article already states that many of his public statements during the campaign were controversial or false

1. Should the article assume intent and call statements lies, where justified and sourced by WP:RS? 2. Should the article follow WP:RSes, assume that Trump has an intent to deceive, and refer to him as a liar?

For Reference: per https://www.merriam-webster.com/

Liar: a person who tells lies has a reputation as a liar

Lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

Casprings (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

lie. To make an untrue statement with intent to deceive; tell a lie <man is the only animal that habitually lies>. M-W Unabridged. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources that call Trump a Liar
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

RfC Survey: Liar and Lie

• Support (qualified)- In cases where the president of the united states of america lies, we should describe these statements as lies (e.g. not merely 'untruths', 'inaccurate', whatever watered down stuff.) Less sure on 'liar', nor do I know where that would be included without seeming odd. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The first definition of liar is "a person who tells lies." By that definition, every human being with an article on Wikipedia would need to be referred to as a "liar," unless they've always responded with the truth when asked how he/she is doing today. I think the terms "lie" and "liar" are loaded, non-encyclopedic, POV (who decides if someone has a reputation for this, or for that?), and sets a dangerous precedent for cramming these terms into everyone's article who lies (every single politician's article, per MelanieN). "criticized for apparently/allegedly false statements" is crystal clear language. EDIT: Also notable that the vast majority of those sources are either from liberal outlets or not RS at all ("WBUR-FM"? "Good" magazine?) Liberal outlets are fine as RS, but need moderate and conservative agreement to avoid purely Democrat POV.Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Copied from an earlier thread: His pattern of falsehoods could arise from a number of things besides a deliberate intent to deceive, including certain cognitive disorders, delusional tendencies, even extreme carelessness or mental laziness. I think most of the sources using that inflammatory word are in fact doing so with political motivation, as they can't see into his mind any more than I can. As I understand it, WP:V policy requires RS for inclusion, but presence of RS does not require inclusion. (Add: even a lot of RS.) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Oppose. WaPo has now documented 744 false and misleading statements in 162 days. [1] In one of his own books he uses an interesting euphemism for his less than true statements that escapes me, which suggests that he has a long-time strategy of knowingly and purposely spreading incorrect statements as facts. RS have regularly commented on the lack of truth in his statements. I think leaders should be called out on the misinformation they spread. Problem is, some portion of these statements are simply him repeating lies from other sources, or simply his own incorrect beliefs – which technically isn’t lying, Besides, lie is a crude word. Objective3000 (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the Office of Government Ethics Director, Walter Shaub Jr., resigned today is more important. Objective3000 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Is there another word that tells the reader someone has intent to misled?Casprings (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but Wikipedia isn't a courtroom, and I don't even know how editors would go about proving intent in this arena. Also, is it the job of an encyclopedia to try to prove an accusation from his detractors? Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose We say that he makes false statements. That is not the same as lying. Lying implied DELIBERATE deception, and we cannot (nor can the "reliable sources") tell what his intent it. In many cases he may be telling falsehoods out of misinformation or ignorance. To say that he tells lies is an accusation. To say that he tells falsehoods is not an accusation, not a BLP violation, not a character judgment. It is a neutral statement of widely reported and indisputable fact. (Didn't we just have this same conversation a few threads ago? Yes, here it is.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - @Casprings: Your statement The article already acknowledges that many of his public statements are false in the RfC opener is not an accurate representation of what the article currently says. I'll leave the correction to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• In the lede, it says that. That said, open to changing. Suggestions?Casprings (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Casprings: No, the lead does not say that. I suggest: "The article already states that many of his public statements during the campaign were controversial or false." ―Mandruss ☎ 14:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support It's widely reported by RS that he is incontrovertibly a liar. MelanieN, let's not assign any value judgment to that. In other words, let's stick to the factual statement that per RS, Trump is a liar. We needn't imply any pejorative evaluation to that statement and the article should not condemn or criticize him for it. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Update I support "lie" but I'm fine with omitting "liar" from the lede in WP's voice. Most editors seem to have made the same error I did in not differentiating the two questions posed in this RfC. I suspect that many will agree with me as to "lie" but not "liar". SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

We needn't imply any pejorative evaluation to that statement and the article should not condemn or criticize him for it. That’s an interesting argument. Basically, you are saying that lying may or may not be justifiable (I think). But, the word lie does make such an implication in many minds. Let us stick with the preponderance of RS and use less provocative wording in an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying something a bit different. I'm saying that "he's lying" is a factual or descriptive statement, just like "he has big hair" or "he has big hands" and that we should not project any normative standard to that conduct. It's not that it's "justifiable" because that implies a normative evaluation of his conduct or its purpose. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

We are not the ones "projecting a standard" or "implying a pejorative evaluation" or "assigning a value judgment" to the word liar. The English language does that. From school yard taunts - "liar! liar! pants on fire!" - to the way reporters try to bait someone into calling someone else a liar - "That's not the way I remember it." "So you are calling him a liar?" "I'm just saying that I don't think it happened that way." "So you're saying he's a liar, right?" - to Trump's repeated taunt of "Lyin' Ted" - this is a loaded, inflammatory, accusatory word. Not a word we can use in an encyclopedia, not when there are neutral, non-accusatory words we can use instead. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, honest question. If Wikipedia was in consensus that a person had an intent to misled by their falsehoods, what other word indicates that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)

There are more neutral words for that too. And it depends on how we were able to judge their intent. If they were found in a court of law to be lying under oath, the word is "perjurer". If they themselves admitted to their deceptive intent, we could attribute the word to them: "He admitted he was lying." --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Reliable sources refer to him as such (e.g. the NYT). Hence, we should follow standard Wikipedia practice, which is to use the terms used by reliable sources. LK (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no way to assign motive to his falsehoods. Without that you cannot state he is lying. PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not encyclopedic language. In other articles about politicians famous for lying and exaggeration, this type of language is not used. (See Adolf Hitler for example.) Furthermore it is both incorrect and weasel-wording. While the view that Trump is a liar has been reported in multiple RS, RS do not say he is a liar. And if we are going to say he has been called a liar, we need to say who calls him that. BTW multiple people also accuse other politicians of lying, some people think that all politicians are liars. TFD (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the strawman about the troglodytes who sneer "all politicians are liars" but you know, there are bigger things about Hilter than his lies. RE: Trump, RS tell us that his lies are one of the most notable facts about him and that his expertise at crafting and deploying them to his documented advantage is unmatched in recent American history. Let's check our value judgments at the door. It's irrelevant whether lying is considered a pejorative. Anyway, I personally doubt that it is as offensive as you claim, because millions of his supporters cheer his speeches and watch his TV appearances to enjoy his lies. SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as ham-fisted and un-encyclopedic. Yes, he has a disturbing disregard of the truth, and has made an unprecedented number of false statements (source) but that's more nuanced than just calling someone a "liar". ~Awilley (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per IAR, for possible confusing or misleading the reader. See Merriam-Webster Unabridged: "To make an untrue statement with intent to deceive <man is the only animal that habitually lies>". Trump is an animal that habitually makes (outrageously) untrue statements with intent to entertain (in his role as a WWE huckster) or cause drama (as a politician). --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Could you explain the IAR bit here? You seem to be affirming that RS describe him as a liar, but then you are concerned that readers would misunderstand that? It would be our job as editors to convey whatever RS say so that, as usual, only a small number of readers misunderstand the mainstream view WP reflects. SPECIFICO talk 12:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose many sources call many politicians liars (and IMHO - they all lie or at least don't live up to promises). This is a POV statement. We should stick to the facts (describing where he made false statements and why) - and not to POV adjectives.Icewhiz (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Please be more specific and cite evidence that there are "many" (how many, who, according to what sources?) other such politicians. Otherwise your claim can't be evaluated alongside the other views in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 12:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Just about every elected modern politician has been accused (often with some basis) of lying at least part of the time. This isn't a new claim (I didn't expect a source request for this), but if you want one - here Wortham, Stanton, and Michael Locher. "Embedded metapragmatics and lying politicians." Language & Communication 19.2 (1999): 109-125. [2], https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00130405?LI=true [3] Mearsheimer, John J. Why leaders lie: The truth about lying in international politics. Oxford University Press, 2011. [4]. If we were to start tagging politicians as liars when enough RS claim so (with an in-depth piece on how a list of statements or promises were untrue) - there would be no end to it - on both sides of the aisle. Both Clintons have been accused (and Bill was tried in the house and senate) of lying - with some basis - Wikipedia shouldn't stoop to that level in articles. Articles should be encyclopedic, not polemic - for either side. Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose — Pretty much everything has already been said above.--Joobo (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strong opose - user Specifico and some others come and say: "Trump is a liar, he tells us lies." What 100 p.c. evidence or even 50 p.c. hint have you got for this accusation? Can you tell us proven examples, with valid sources? Have you read the rules for this side given above? Or are you propagandists of the other side of the political spectrum. To cite Dervorguilla: "Trump is an animal." What was this? Are you kidding on Wikipedia? Those who want use expressions that are not allowed here are trying not only to neglect the rules of Wikipedia, but to change them in a quiet way. One of the rules is political neutrality, another one the adherence to real facts. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Level 1 AGF warning issued. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• There are reasons to warn some other editors, not (only) me, user Mandruss. The expression "animal" has been used, there was no way to misunderstand this. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a way, and you found it.
  If other editors need AGF warnings you are free to issue them. Just be sure you understand WP:AGF and the definition of "good faith" first, and your comment above strongly suggests that you do not. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - For those who do not know about it: WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES. The article Donald Trump, along with other highly visible articles relating to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBAPDS). The current restrictions are: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. Etc. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Lying requires intent. Unless Trump confesses or someone has mind-reading abilities, it is difficult to determine whether the falsehoods are deliberate lies or the result of ignorance or stupidity. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

… or cunning obfuscation — JFG ^talk 15:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha, are you helping again? PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I won't say that this needs to be included here. Is there any Public image of Donald Trump yet? It would fit there. Lorstaking (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - We should never reduce the subject of a biography to one of their character flaws such as by applying a pejorative label like "liar". As a matter of good editorial judgment, we should never use this encyclopedia to call people cheaters, losers, haters, greedy, ignorant, crooked, or slutty, no matter what sources say. On the question of whether the article should assume intent and call statements lies: No, an article should not assume intent. We should write with a dispassionate tone and relate facts in a clear, objective manner. It's reasonable for anyone to conclude that Trump is a lying liar, but Wikipedia should never reflect that view without attribution.- MrX 19:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Spectacularly written response...right up to the rhetorical tool (to which I was recently introduced) called "apophasis," which you used to attack a living person right on his biography's talk page. It has zero relevance what "reasonable people" may or may not conclude about the living person. It's always about what the reliable sources say, not what editors think that "reasonable people" may or may not conclude.Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Posing a hypothetical is hardly an "attack". Editor discretion is very much part of writing an encyclopedia. That discretion is colored by our values, beliefs, education, and experience, among other things.- MrX 20:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump is widely cited for apophasis, come to think of it. Some Mexicans are AOK. SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Who says it's a "character flaw", or for that matter a "pejorative"? Let's just describe the subject as the weight of RS describe it. As others have said, we should not probe the depths of his soul here, just report how RS describe his behavior. SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I say it's a character flaw. Lying is antisocial. The definition of pejorative is "A word expressing contempt or disapproval", or alternatively "a word or phrase that has negative connotations or that is intended to disparage or belittle". There is obviously no consensus among reliable sources about how to describe Trump's prevarication. We should not selectively use the most blunt, controversial term when we can simply write factually using words that are commonly seen in encyclopedias to describe the same type of behavior. My objection does not preclude using the words lie, liar, lied, lying, in the appropriate context, but no way will I endorse the carte blanche that the OP seems to be seeking here.- MrX 14:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You raise the important distinction between whether to report the fact that he lies and whether to label him a liar. I have been discussing primarily the former. I don't think an encyclopedia should say "Gianni Mozzarella is a Neopolitan cheesemonger, philatelist, and liar" in an article lede. I think it's proper and important, however to refer to lying as one of the keys to Trump's manifest success in various endeavors. Per RS, we should document his actions, not characterize his soul. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

HT, friendly suggestion. Your block just ended. Immediately after a block expires, try making mainspace contributions instead of criticisms of other editors. Particularly since your user page suggests that you are here to WP:rightgreatwrongs. Objective3000 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey again, O-3000. I'm not sure why other editors think it's appropriate to poison the well by referencing past punitive action (your claim that I was recently blocked is false, btw), but it ain't. However, I'm going to AGF take you at your word that you're being friendly. Feel free to voice any concerns you may have about my contributions to the encyclopedia on my talk page so we don't get too far off topic. In the meantime, let's make sure we're holding ourselves to the very strict standards that BLP sanctions require (i.e., not using apophasis to attack living persons on their talk pages). Thanks. In any case, looks like this RfC can be closed per WP:Snow. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hidden Tempo: A short, standard-form reply like "I categorically deny your groundless accusations" wastes less of your time. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

This page is very contentious. This situation obviously does not call for a SNOW close. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - For reasons above. B. J. Klowshinski (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support-ish -not as phrased, because to simply "assume" intent fails WP:V, and to simply state as lies in WP voice with not a bio reason to go there fails WP:OFFTOPIC and where WP:PUBLICFIGURE says negatives should be attributed rather than stated as fact. If there is as biographical reason -- i.e. some effect on his life -- then I would say careful handling is essential to it being kept. I tend to think though that it belongs more to the Presidency article, or Election article --and seems a POV due for mention, the same WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WEIGHT indicate it *should* go SoMeWhErE. But I question if the NPOV requirements of conveying all views in due WP:WEIGHT mean you would need to say "false" as the more common, then "lies" as now frequent, and then "valid" as reflecting many that justify the point if not the literal wording or tone. Annnd - partisan editors will not like cites like Politico "Are Clinton and Trump the Biggest Liars Ever to Run For Pre side To?" if this is put into a joint article the same basis would get applied to both. Markbassett (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think that something like this does need to be included in Donald Trump on social media; it's undisputed that many of his posts on social media are lies. It's excessive in the lede here; the fact that politicians lie was a cliche before Trump was elected. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

RS also uniformly report he lies in public speeches, televised interviews, and official statements. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

RS also report he has orange skin and short fingers. The burden to include it in the lede section is higher than simply being reported by RS. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

RS amply describe and discuss the significance of the strategy and tactics he implements through what the RS call deliberate false statements. SPECIFICO talk 12:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I am not a native speaker, but I thought "a lie" is merely a statement that was used intentionally for the purpose of deception. Yes, this is exactly what RS on the subject imply. This is something people frequently do. Nothing special. Presidents do it too. Not telling something that RS tell would be against the policy - please see WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It is considered very offensive in English. TFD (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Noted, TFD finds the word offensive, but as editors we use the terms that RS use and Wikipedia is not censored. Censorship is considered very offensive on WP. SPECIFICO talk 12:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Of course this man has told some pretty massive whoppers, not all of which can have been the result of misinformation or confusion. But putting aside for a moment the the massive amount of WP:OR taking place in numerous comments above as to the man's intent, this is just not encyclopedic in tone. Even if the sourcing ran all in one direction as to Mr. Trump's purported dishonesty, this is an encyclopedia, not a place for polemic editorializing: we'd still find a more removed, objective way to describe his dishonesty. And the truth is that, while we have numerous sources speaking to countless occasions where the man has seemed to promote blatant falsehoods, and we further have additional sources that explicitly label him a liar (either themselves or in relating other comments from primary sources) we also have mountains of sources which view his supposedly dubious relationship with the truth in less critical terms. It may boggle the minds of some who view Trump as a third-rate huckster, but its the reality of media coverage of the man. And again, even were it not--even if the sources were more unanimous that the man cannot be trusted to tell the truth, we'd still go with more encyclopedic wording.

Do note, however, that my !vote relates only to comments we make in Wikipedia's own voice. Where appropriate, it is perfectly reasonable to directly attribute quotes/claims from others calling Trump a liar, provided these assertions are included in such a way as to make the party making them clear, and presuming there aren't more than few of these (too many will quickly begin to violate WP:WEIGHT considerations). Snow ^{let's rap} 06:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support to an extent. It shouldn't be printed in a Wikipedia voice "Donald Trump is a liar...", regardless of the truth of that statement. The form of "Donald Trump frequently makes statements which are regarded as lies..." is acceptable. TheValeyard (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And who is deciding when "frequently" is reached? How is "frequently" determined? Compared to other presidents, compared to the average human-being? Compared to the average human-being of the age-group? Is there even some general level you can compare the possible lies to? And who is regarding statements as lies? When does the statements actually qualify as such? All these questions and many more can never be answered properly, and hence for an encyclopaedia there is no need to use the suggested terms. Statements, actions and evidence is provided in articles and readers can decide and evaluate for themselves. Otherwise it is no encyclopaedia anymore.Joobo (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources decide when this is a characteristic that particularly applies to a particular person. The reason that some of us oppose the use of the words lie and liar is not because we don’t think they apply; but because we prefer more encyclopedic words. And no we don’t just include evidence in articles. We also include reliably sourced conclusions. We just don’t make those conclusions ourselves. Objective3000 (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

As already pointed out even with "reliable sources" such entries simply are not acceptable- for no BLP. There never even can be a reliable source that has the ground to identify something as "frequent lying" etc. since some qualifications like that are technically impossible. That is the bottom line.--Joobo (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) Until he admits to being a liar or telling lies, all Wikipedia can say is that he made false statements. I'm sure a few hundred sources can be found calling Hillary a hoe, but we aren't going to include it because it is immaterial. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you (not really) for the disgusting misogyny of comparing the current president's penchant for falsehoods to a female politician's sexual mores. ValarianB (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

ValarianB Please clarify for me, are you accusing me of being mysogynistic and violating the BLP? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You are guilty on both counts, yes. ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I beg to differ. First off, I said "a few hundred sources", not "Let it be known that L3X1 believes that Hillary is a hoe." Comparing the Orange One's "penchant for falsehoods" (a favorite opposition dig on him, and one I support fully) to what real misogynists call Clinton is not me expressing my non-existent hate feelings. Throughout the campaign last year certain peoples resorted to hundreds of base ad hominem attacks on Clinton, and I am merely bringing that fact up. I formatted my !vote so as to limit my strong bias against the incumbent, and to conform to Wikipedia's policies of Verifiability and BLP. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support If reliable sources call him a liar, then there's nothing wrong with the Wikipedia following suit. Explain it in context, such as what source said it and why, of course. ValarianB (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Calling the President of the United States a liar in Wikipedia's voice would be grossly unencyclopedic language. RS also frequently make derogatory references to his skin tone and hand size, and we correctly ignore that too because it has no place in an encyclopedia. Outright calling him a liar assumes facts not in evidence, i.e. his intent, which I doubt journalists are privy to. In addition, a large number of the "sources" provided are opinion pieces, and thus not suitable for statements of fact.The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is not as clear cut as some people make it out to be. Donald Trump lies almost constantly. More than that, he deliberately uses lies to deflect and distract, as reporting in reliable sources has shown; nevertheless, using Wikipedia's voice to label Trump as a liar is unacceptable and unencyclopedic. We do not need to say he is a liar to show he lies, and so we must not do so. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - FWIW - agree with other supporters atm - AFAIK - Trump, consistent with his admiration of P.T. Barnum, and recent New York Times articles, including "Trump's Lies", and relevant phrasing, like ("flat-out lies"), may have intentionally presented "false statements" in order to deceive others; besides, use of any other wording may be considered censorship, which Wikipedia usually doesn't support afaik - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

References

• Oppose - My thoughts on the subject have already been related by all others that oppose the move. Just go to any Wikipedia article where you would think pejorative language would be used (Stalin, Mao, Jeffrey Dahmer, Hitler, whomever you like). It is distinctly lacking. It is unencyclopedic and unprofessional to use this language -- nevermind for an actual sitting President. Cheef117 (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Oppose - Agree with almost everything said by Scjessey above. Trump appears to use language to deflect and distract and divide, not to inform or involve or lead. Whether this is because of conscious lying or a malevolent 'Chauncey Gardiner' inability to tell the difference is both unverifiable and immaterial. His supporters probably know this and don't care, he may well know it and equally does not appear to care. Apart from being unencyclopaedic, it plays into that world to use 'his' language level, most sources give a more nuanced account than that proposed. "We do not need to say he is a liar to show he lies, record verifiable info and so we must not do so". Pincrete (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Scjessey. Sure he is a constant and ubiquitous liar but saying that in Wikipedia's voice is problematic. However, I see no problem with stating, even in the lead, something relating to the liar issues, attributed to appropriate sourcing. It is a significant aspect of his presidency as well as his previous career in business. It would have to be phrased with great care. (responding per bot) Coretheapple (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose saying Trump is a liar; however, if multiple reliable sources refer to a specific statement as a lie, and no reliable sources say it wasn't a lie, it may be OK use "lie" as a noun or verb, as in this totally made up example:
  • On January 20, 2017, Trump said that he had never foobarred, but this was shown to be a lie the next day when CNN published a video of Trump foobarring with Putin in 2015.

References

—Anomalocaris (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support the use of "lie" (number 1 above) where supported by non-opinion RSes. We don't have to be mind-readers about intent, we just have to back it up with reliable sources. If enough RS call a certain statement a lie, we can too.

Oppose the use of "liar" (number 2 above). "Liar" more habitual, and moreover often understood as an evaluation of character. We should stay away from it.

--MattMauler (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – Multiple RS in multiple countries call multiple politicians liars, crooks and traitors. Not encyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 17:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As much as I agree with the assessment that Trump is a shameless liar, I'll have to say referring to him as one will not be appropriate here. Liar/lie are not neutral words and most, if not all, politicians lie constantly. I guess it comes with the territory, but Wikipedia finds more tactful ways to report their lies rather than outright calling them liars. Granted, the frequency of Trump's lies are a bit unusual, but we can't just make an exception to neutrality. Before anyone starts with "but RS calls him a liar"; reliable sources from the other end of the political spectrum are always eager to call their opponents liars, so it's possible to find RS calling any politician a liar at one point or another. Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure that outright calling him a liar is encyclopedic, but mentioning that many reliable sources have done so may be appropriate. goose121 (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - that a specific statement made by him is untruthful is a question of facts which can be known by people other than himself; however, that he made that statement for the purpose of deceiving (also required for the statement to be a lie, and not a mistake or an exaggeration) is known only to himself. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Summoned by a bot. After reading the entire thread I keep coming back to the Duck test. A lot of oppose votes start somewhere along the lines of "I agree he tells falsehoods but.." We can dance around it all we want, or call a duck a duck and leave it at that. Comatmebro (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs) and Comatmebro (talk · contribs). The fact that a lie can be verified by third party sources such as major news outlets. Do I see more CNN references in this article's future? Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

An unusual number of the oppose editors seem to be voting rather than !voting with policy-based reasoning behind their views. Mere votes will not carry any weight in a thoughtful close of this important discussion. Let's see some solid reasons behind those 'posies. SPECIFICO talk 12:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia policy is as pretty much as solid a reason upon which an "oppose" vote can be based, and that's why this RfC has garnered only a small trickle of "support" votes. The other reason is that the terms "lie" and "liar" are applied to the president almost exclusively among sources that despise the president, rather than a broad consensus of sources from around the political spectrum. The sources included in that 300+ group which take a more dispassionate view, do NOT support the claim that Trump is a "liar" or "lies," e.g. 6, 7, 55, but are rather quoting the above sources (or Democratic commentators/politicians) or link to the opinion pages. As Power~enwiki explained, just because a RS uses a term, does not mean that it is encyclopedic language or meets the very strict content requirements that BLP pages demand. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Like it or not, this is the tenor of reliable sources, explicitly referring to the man as a liar... Putin Meets His Progeny, "Our “president” is a pathological liar. He lies about everything, all the time. Lying is his resting condition." I'd think sooner rather than later, an encyclopedia will have to acknowledge this. ValarianB (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not a reliable source for a statement of fact here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Opinion pieces aren't reliable sources for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see the hundreds of sources cited beneath the hat above. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we just put this RfC out of its misery already? Hardly anybody supports this proposal, including those who despise the president and are now just using this as a forum to attack the living person on his biography's talk page. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think we can. WP:SNOW closes are for cases where (1) the applicable policy is fairly clear, and (2) almost everybody agrees on that (upwards of 90 percent). Absent either of those the process has to play out, which in this case probably means 30 days. Even with these numbers, the disinterested closer could still find stronger policy basis in the Support arguments. (Any discussion of editors' motives is both irrelevant and, per WP:AGF, improper. Please keep any such suspicions to yourself.) ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I did a quick count and it looks like it's about 21 Oppose - 8 Support right now, so I guess a snow would be inappropriate. Let the debate rage on haha. EDIT: Just to clarify, I wasn't questioning anyone's motives for the votes themselves - just noting that even editors who are using this RfC as a forum to attack the man are voting "Oppose" as well. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind that an unusually large number of the "oppose" lines are mirrors without any addition to the substantive discussion. I read the consensus so far as favoring some form of inclusion, though more strongly for lie than liar. These things will all become clearer with time as various pending stories develop one way or other to a conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I think an RfC about the plural noun "lies" with appropriate attribution (whatever that would be) would stand a better chance. I suspect I would support that. This stuff is problematic only in wiki voice, imo. It's too late to morph this RfC into that one, but we could agree to abort to save time, per WP:RFCEND. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If there is draft wording, I would be willing to withdraw this RFC to start that one, in hopes of gaining a consensus.Casprings (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It would not bother me to see this one closed and a new one started with "lies" and no "liar". Anyone can see his pants are not on fire. However I don't see that we'd need an RfC for "lies" because nobody has really given a reason not to use that objective statement -- one that doesn't tag him or damn him to eternal fire. Maybe you could make the edit and if anyone has a reason to revert it we could go back to the RfC channel? SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I now see we're already saying "lies" at Donald_Trump#Campaign_rhetoric. My inclination would be to clarify the attribution there and call it a day, leaving the lead alone. But I'm too brain-dead to be "specifico" about that change, and anyway I'd prefer to wait and see how others feel about this hole matter. Misspelling intentional. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

FWIW - Re the word "unencyclopedic" => please note, according to Wikipedia => "... the terms "unencyclopedic", and its flip-side "encyclopedic", are too general to be useful in deletion discussions ..." - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Contentious labels, brought up by Scjessey, is more on point. Objective3000 (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that you linked to a WP:ESSAY and not a WP:GUIDELINE. So no, there's nothing in your assertion that can be accurately described as "according to Wikipedia"--it's only one editor's opinion. And not very common one, either; veteran users routinely use the term "unencyclopedic" when something is flatly and plainly wrong in tone for an encyclopedia. Though most will also qualify the usage with more particular and context-relevant criticisms which....well, would you look at that, all of the editors using the term above have done.. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - use of the word "unencyclopedic" (see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC) may be worthy of further considerations in Wikipedia discussions after all - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: This RfC is extremely difficult to evaluate as written. A false statement is not necessarily a lie, since, as Casprings notes, a lying requires the intent to deceive. Further, many of the listed sources are explicitly opinions sources and therefore unreliable, especially for such as exceptional claim. Therefore, I personally would like to see a list of reliable non-opinion sources that expressly call Trump a liar. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Which is another reason that using softer words like “falsehoods” makes more sense. Plenty of resources exist for such. Objective3000 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I personally doubt this is the case, but if there is sufficient sourcing to call Trump a liar, then I would probably support it. It's worth tracking. Unfortunately this RfC doesn't advance Casprings's or BullRangifer's cause. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Read Dan MacGuill, "The Lies of Donald Trump’s Critics, and How They Shape His Many Personas", Snopes.com, July 12, 2017. "An in-depth analysis of the false allegations and misleading claims made against the 45th President since his inauguration." Snopes.com is a mainstream reputable source. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Psychological make-up

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.

---

Just as there is a section on Trump's overall physical health, it would be an addition to the article to have something on his psychological make-up - as well-sourced and verifiable as possible, of course. I don't believe it is a contentious statement to assert that he has a mindset and self-presentation not usually seen in politicians. The Mind of Donald Trump, written by an academic psychologist before the election, would seem one place to start. I might be bold enough to insert a sentence, but I am not going to risk creating a new section. Any thoughts? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems pretty fraught for an encyclopedia article, and a timesump. Time will tell. In 4 years, there should be some consensus backed by factual evidence as to his mindset. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If it’s an armchair analysis, it runs afoul of the Goldwater_rule. If he had sessions with Trump, it’s still iffy in a political BLP. After Trump is out of office and historians and psychologists have had time to digest his presidency; it would be appropriate. And, as SPECIFICO says, it’d be a timesump. Objective3000 (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of the Goldwater rule; thank you for that. A crucial distinction, though, is that it refers to psychiatrists and the diagnosis of mental illness, while I am referring to psychologists' assessment of someone's overall temperament and personality. I'd see that as equivalent to describing someone as "tall, slightly overweight, with a limp in his left leg": observable facts (6'2"), or normal-speech fair interpretations (tall). From the article:

In creating this portrait, I will draw from well-validated concepts in the fields of personality, developmental, and social psychology. Ever since Sigmund Freud analyzed the life and art of Leonardo da Vinci, in 1910, scholars have applied psychological lenses to the lives of famous people. Many early efforts relied upon untested, nonscientific ideas. In recent years, however, psychologists have increasingly used the tools and concepts of psychological science to shed light on notable lives, as I did in a 2011 book on George W. Bush.

Trump has been in the public eye for decades, and his pronouncements and actions are there for anyone to draw conclusions from - including academic experts in various fields. As for my proposal being a timesump - true, but isn't that the case for any of our articles about the man? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per SPECIFICO and Objective3000. Far more coverage by secondary sources would be needed to even have a WP:WEIGHT discussion about this for a sitting president. It would probably fail even then, simply due to the fact that it would be so heavy on educated speculation. I don't care how much some psychologists think they know, Goldwater still applies. I have seen this kind of discussion in a half-dozen BLPs, and I've yet to see content like this get into one. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Not only that, but Goldwater really was nuts! SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - seems a bit of rehash of Presidency of Donald Trump - RfC: Possible POV of Authoritarian tendencies and likely to fail on the same NPOV, BALASP, and other concerns. One could google up any one viewpoint, but unless something is a big portion of his life it is WP:OFFTOPIC for this BLP article. It just seems likely to be or become just WP:SOAPBOX space to gossip and innuendo opinions and politically-corrupted posturing and not factual objective events of his actual personal treatment. Markbassett (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Due to the Goldwater rule, reliable sources can't exist at this time. Separately, I would support removing the "Health" section entirely. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it only means that most psychiatrists licensed under the APA may face a charge of an ethics violation if they provided such an opinion; it doesn't mean that some might not still do so (or that we would be required to view it as non-reliable if they did), nor does it mean that another expert (psychiatrist, another medical or behavioural expert, or psychologist) who is not bound by APA conduct standards (because of the nature of their accreditation or because they practice outside the U.S.) might not say something similar. That said, I tend to agree with your broader point that it is far too soon to be considering the feasibility of such a section, from the probable weight of the number of sources available at this point and their likely speculative/superficial coverage of the topic. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Point taken, we should stop trying to use the Goldwater rule to bolster opposition to this kind of content. I don't think we need it, much. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

True. Although if we’re ever tempted to include armchair psychological analyses of living politicians; I think it’s wise to keep in mind the strong opinion of the APA. Objective3000 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – Just wtf. All leaders are egomaniac narcissists, many are borderline paranoid, some are totally mad. None of them is characterized this way in Wikipedia. Care to write an essay on the mental health of Pol Pot, anyone? — JFG ^talk 20:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Is this worthy of the list? Consensus seems pretty clear, even with relatively low participation, and chances are fair it will come up again. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and I'm pretty sure it came up before. Go add an item if you feel like it. — JFG ^talk 20:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Done.[5] To all: If you can locate previous discussions that clearly support this consensus, please add those links to the item. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 18 July 2017 (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.

Muslim ban or travel ban?

With this edit to the lede's last paragraph, I clarified the judicial status of the travel ban and I removed the qualifier "Muslim-majority" as POV. PatGallacher reverted, saying this was not POV but a statement of fact. Certainly those countries are Muslim-majority, but so are many others; a more important common trait of those countries is that they have been deemed dangerous and unreliable by the State Department, most of them being war zones. I would argue that in the context of this legislation, the labeling of affected countries as "Muslim-majority" adopts de facto the blocking judges' angle which interprets Executive Order 13780 on a religious basis, whereas this document makes no mention of religion. To uphold neutrality in the lede of this high-profile BLP, we should not refer to religion either. Casting the legislation in this light could be construed as misrepresenting Trump's motives based on his campaign rhetoric, although the White House has repeatedly argued that the travel ban was predicated on security considerations due to dysfunctional identity checks in said countries. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 21:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey 1

Should we describe travel ban countries as "Muslim majority" in the lede section? — JFG ^talk 21:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Most reliable sources are using that qualifier, and so should we. As for the implication that Muslims are targeted - well, Trump himself has implied (and said) that multiple times, and the judges drew upon Trump's own words to decide that there was a religious angle to the ban (regardless of how it was worded). We can't make the article neutral by pretending Trump didn't say what he said, or by ignoring the implications that multiple judges found to be important. That's not neutrality, that's whitewashing. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - Good question and I can understand your reluctance. Given the enormous number of times Trump said that he would impose a Muslim ban, I don’t see how the word can be omitted entirely. RS certainly point out that these are Muslim-majority countries. In fact, the cited article for that sentence states this in its first sentence. Seeing that changed this from Comment to Support. Objective3000 (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - It would be a mistake to simply equate the travel ban with Executive Order 13780. The ban is only a part of that order, and at the same time, the ban is much bigger than that order, with a long and interesting history. Calling at a travel ban on citizens from six "Muslim-majority" countries is a nod to that history which included explicit promises for an actual travel ban on Muslims and then legal gymnastics to enact such a ban without calling it a Muslim ban. More importantly, the "Muslim-majority" language is widely used in reliable sources about the ban, and we should follow their lead. ~Awilley (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Awilley, regarding your comment just above, and your comment below, how is it just saying what Trump did if we say "six Muslim-majority countries", but not if we instead say "six countries" or "Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen" or "six countries that purportedly posed a security threat" or "six Muslim-majority countries that purportedly posed a security threat"? Only the phrase "six Muslim-majority countries" conveys what he did, in your view? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Awilley, that's a very good parsing of the situation. Initially it was purely a religious ban, and then, as revealed by leaked strategy discussions about how to (deceptively) make the ban more palatable and legal, the public comments tried to make it seem like a "security" issue. Since then the administration has been more careful, although Trump has many times insisted it was a BAN, in all caps, and expressed his Islamophobia. A real "security" issue has never been backed up by reliable statistics. So yes, wording which recognizes that history and the wording of most RS should be included. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - "important common trait of those countries is that they have been deemed dangerous and unreliable by the State Department, most of them being war zones." Yes, but there are other places just as dangerous that are not included. Clearly dangerousness alone is not the deciding factor. This was called a Muslim ban from the get go, by Trump himself. So I imagine the countries having a majority Muslim population is one of the major factors for their selection, and that should be worth mentioning. Secondly, reliable sources are all mentioning this as it is central to the ban, which means Wikipedia should reflect them. Darwinian Ape ^talk 09:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - It's basically a ban on Muslims who don't come from countries America sells arms to. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes This is clearly the defining characteristic of the ban. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Obviously it is largely a matter of context and attribution, the question of where the same ban will be referred to as a travel ban or a Muslim ban. But the sheer number of sources which label it the latter (and even Trumps own descriptions) leave no question as to the religious dimension here, so it will be necessary (at least in places) to openly discuss this quality of the ban. Obviously this has become a political issue, but note that, even with certain architects/supporters of the ban carefully choosing their words in light of the fact that it could impact upon legal determinations (insofar as religion is a protected class and terms like "Muslim ban" could speak to intent when SCOTUS ultimately rules on this)--even under those conditions, this continues to be regarded by both involved parties and WP:reliable sources as an act either aimed at Muslims or (without question) affecting them disproportionately. Again, individual cases must be judged on how clearly the source is being attributed, but I can imagine many contexts where "Muslim ban" would the appropriate option. And even in con texts where we steer away from that particular term as too polemic, "Muslim majority" is certainly acceptable. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. The only reason the ban has been controversial was because of Trump's choice of Muslim-majority countries, and his repeated remarks made it clear his first thought was to ban Muslims (which the judge used as evidence for the cause of the ban), and the "security" issues were an excuse thought up later, because none of these six countries had a history as posing a threat to the USA. More dangerous countries, with a history of terrorism affecting the USA, were not included in the ban. If "security" was the real reason, it would have made sense to ban travel from them. This is all from RS. Some sources went further to note that the countries not included were those where Trump had business interests. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - key component of EO, discussed in every reliable source, and led to extensive federal litigation. Neutrality^talk 18:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - single most notable thing about it. Covered in thousands of reliable sources. Directly discussed in federal lawsuits by multiple federal judges from different districts across the U.S. Sagecandor (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey 2

If we keep the "Muslim-majority" language, should we balance it with a consideration of the security argument, so that both angles are covered? (exact wording to be defined) — JFG ^talk 06:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes — Nothing speaks against stating that the countries of concern are of muslim-majority, as this is surely one key factor. Additionally, mentioning the security aspect would be needed as this is basically the ratio behind the executive order.--Joobo (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• No - There's no "security argument" the Trump administration can legitimately make, since the State Department already does extensive vetting and other Muslim-majority nations are far greater security threats than those listed in the ban. This is nothing more than Trump fulfilling the campaign promise he made to his xenophobic, jingoistic base. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: With all due respect, methinks you are delving into WP:OR when you say "other Muslim-majority nations are far greater security threats than those listed in the ban" – do you have sources for that evaluation? Also, calling half of USA voters "xenophobic, jingoistic" sounds a bit deplorable. — JFG ^talk 03:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Do not personalize talk page comments. Play the ball, not the man. Editor behavior issues are handled elsewhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The editor Scjessey has a history of editing overly positive in favor of a certain Democratic candidate and negatively to Trump so I'm not surprised by these comments and the WP:OR--97.124.67.164 (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC) @97.124.67.164: Someone with zero editing history doesn't really have any standing to comment on the editing behavior of others. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC) I'd rather someone with zero editing history than a biased editing history but that's just my two cents. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Maybe your opinion would actually be worth two cents if your own editing history was neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: WP:OR only applies to article content, not talk page comments. Besides, there are hundreds of mainstream media articles pointing out the fact that most of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, as well as many others saying precisely the same thing as me. Also, I did not say anything about "half of USA voters". But it was clear that Trump's Muslim ban was specifically crafted to appeal to the naturally xenophobic Republican base of deplorables who falsely equate being Muslim with terrorism. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, several commenters have opined that Saudi Arabia is more dangerous, whereas several others have opined that the nationality of 9/11 hijackers 16 years ago does not imply that vetting processes in place between Saudi Arabia and USA today are inefficient. If the State Department and Homeland Security are satisfied with that process, it's logical that this country was not singled out. Apart from Saudi Arabia, are there other Muslim countries that could be considered more dangerous or more hostile than the 6-7 concerned? Other editors pointed out that the list of suspicious countries was drawn up long before Trump took office, so it does sound a bit biased to blame it all on religion. Some people say this ban is a "trial balloon" as a first step towards banning all Muslims; that's just idiotic fearmongering.

To your other point: I was just kidding about your "deplorable" comment; other editors may not realize that you and I have a long history of collaborating on this issue in a friendly and neutral spirit, although we are looking at current US politics from different angles. — JFG ^talk 12:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe It would have to depend upon the exact wording. This is not the article of the travel ban, and we should not go into excessive detail about the ban especially in the lead, however we have no reason to abandon a well referenced rational if it would concisely explain why they claim the ban was created. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• No Agree with Scjessey. If this were really about security, Saudi Arabia would be on the list; that's where most of the 9/11 attackers came from. And his "security" argument is very flexible; one minute the courts are putting the country in terrible danger by delaying the ban even a day; the next minute he is going to take a month or two to think about it. His justification for the ban is a detail compared to the main thrust of the ban. IMO it could be in the article but not in the lede. I don't see any mention of the "security" rationale in our "immigration" paragraph here, but a brief mention could be added. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Maybe, it would depend on the exact wording. For us to reject such wording out of hand seems quite POVish given that SCOTUS unanimously lifted an injunction against this Trump administration policy, so we would essentially be saying that not just POTUS but also SCOTUS are a bunch of religious bigots. Does that sound like NPOV to you? Or does it sound like Wikipedia editors trying to use Wikipedia for our own editorial purposes? Regarding Saudi Arabia, during the Obama Administration, the "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act" originally affected four countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran and Sudan. Then Libya, Yemen, and Somalia were added later as "countries of concern" by Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security. I am not aware why Obama did not add Saudi Arabia, but I very much doubt the countries on the list were selected because of any religious bigotry on Obama's part (the reason for excluding Saudi Arabia may have been that that country at least has a functioning nationwide government that can therefore be held responsible for proper vetting). Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• No. The "security" argument was an after thought excuse which has never held water. It's a fiction. As I noted in the previous section, if "security" had been the real reason, then the countries which have a real history of posing actual terrorist danger to the USA would have been included in the ban, but they were notably excepted, as some RS noted, because Trump has business interests in those countries. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. It is necessarily to provide fair representation to other significant points of view and maintain neutrality. While some believe this is "fiction" there are a great many reliable sources which do not make this assertion.--97.124.67.164 (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of "other significant points of view". It's almost universally regarded as a ban that has nothing to do with security. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe. Personally, I think the executive order is simply an appeal to bigotry. But, what counts is what RS say and what Trump says. The cite used at the top of this article calls it a ban from six Muslim-majority countries. We have to say what RS say. I believe the executive order has a title stating that it is about terrorism. So, I think we need to include that claim in some manner. But, I think it must be phrased in such a manner that RS reporting is given greater emphasis. And, any mention in the lead must be more succinct than what I just wrote in this paragraph.:) Objective3000 (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes That is the entire reason behind the travel ban from nations/failed states that are currently torn apart by ISIS and Jihadi violence. It would be disingenuous to say that the ban is based on religion, due to the fact that the most populous Muslim countries are not affected (as they have their radical Islamist situations more or less under control, and have a stable government). Any other reasoning put forth is nothing more than speculation, editorializing, and regurgitation of cable news talking points. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hidden Tempo, use of mainstream RS is not "speculation, editorializing, and regurgitation". We are supposed to depend on them for our content, unless they are provably wrong in specific situations. Yes, there are such individual situations (and we don't use them in those cases), but, as a general rule, the sources you are trying to get removed ("To do: Possible removal of NYT, WaPo, CNN as Wikipedia reliable sources"...per your user page) are perfectly good sources to use, and you will fail in your endeavor to disrupt our RS policy. Such a failure to understand our RS policy shows you are somewhat unfit to edit here, but that can improve if you can learn to follow our RS policy and depend on those sources you despise, rather than narratives from unreliable sources (like Trump's favorites). Instead of fighting against these RS, start using them, and only use RS, not fringe sources.

  Your narrative shows a dependence on the Trump narrative, rather than what the vast majority of RS say about this matter. That's why you seem to be ignorant of what others are saying here, and why below you call the narrative derived from RS "Pure speculation/WP:OR." To get up to speed, you need to start following NYT, WaPo, CNN, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, BBC, etc. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct BullRangifer, the use of mainstream media as sources is not in itself WP:OR, but taking material from RS, forming your own conclusions, and then synthesizing material from those conclusions is where the problem arises. Your opinion that the New York Times is "perfectly good" is just that - your opinion. Breitbart is now fact-checking these perfectly good RS, which I view as a very big problem for the NYT ("17 intelligence agencies", anyone?). Regarding your personal attacks and aspersions about "ignorance" and declaring who is or isn't "fit" to edit, I'd kindly ask you to refocus your energy on content rather than your fellow editors and telling them what they "need" to do. I'm very much "up to speed" on what's going on in the buildings over at the NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc., but please don't lump an esteemed organization like the WSJ in with organizations that push "mostly bullshit" narratives for "ratings" or ones that secretly dined with a presidential candidate's campaign staff to discuss "framing the HRC message." My comment isn't about the sources themselves - it's about what they say, as always. Happy to discuss more with you on my talk page so we don't derail the discussion, provided you can be a bit more civil and mindful of WP:NPA. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Probably not With the limited real estate in the Lead I don't think we need to take the space to give detailed rationales (valid or otherwise) for his actions. To give an example of the wrong way, take this excerpt from the Lead with rationales inserted in green:

  "[Trump] withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership as part of his policy of putting America First and the Paris Climate Agreement because he was skeptical of global warming, and he undid parts of the Cuban Thaw to further dismantle Obama's legacy. Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court because Gorsuch was a respected conservative judge. He ordered a travel ban on citizens from six Muslim-majority countries} to stop terrorists from coming into the country and review the immigration system.

  Just say what he did and leave detailed rationale for the body. ~Awilley (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Awilley, how is it just saying what he did if we say "six Muslim-majority countries", but not just saying what he did if we instead say "six countries" or "Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen" or "six countries that purportedly posed a security threat" or "six Muslim-majority countries that purportedly posed a security threat"? Only the phrase "six Muslim-majority countries" conveys what he did? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The RfC for that is just above this, labeled Survey 1. ~Awilley (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me that the surveys overlap to some extent, but I will pose the question up there instead of here if you like. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't bother, it's probably better to just keep the thread in one place. All of the examples you gave are saying what he did. But the first is saying it using language widely used in reliable sources. ~Awilley (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree the first is saying it using language widely used in reliable sources, but so do the second, third, fourth, and fifth. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If you think there's a stronger case for one of the others you are free to make that argument above. ~Awilley (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I am open to something like "six Muslim-majority countries that purportedly posed a security threat" and am glad that you seem to be as well. Omitting the last six words conveys that Trump and his subordinates, plus the U.S. Supreme Court are religious bigots, which I don't think is something that ought to be in wikivoice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Too vague- it's unclear what is being proposed here. It's OK if we say that "the putative rationale was X," but only if we also (1) note that the federal courts ruled that the ban lacked a sufficient national security justification and was based on animus toward Muslims, and (2) note that the DHS's own reports said that the travel ban does not effectively combat terrorism ("DHS report casts doubt on need for Trump travel ban"), and note that experts on terrorism from across the political spectrum say the same thing ("Immigration Ban Is Unlikely to Reduce Terrorist Threat, Experts Say"). It's not OK to give the putative reason without also mentioning these highly salient facts. Neutrality^talk 18:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Always a problem with adding questionable claims. You end up with a chain of counterclaims. Certainly not acceptable in a lead. Objective3000 (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• No. Agree with BullRangifer that the "security" argument was an after thought excuse which has never held water. It's a fiction. Sagecandor (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Pure speculation/WP:OR. Nothing in the DHS statements, Trump administration statements, or the EO itself lends credence to the above editorial. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

See my comment to you above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I put my response there as well, thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Lean no The Trump Administration's rationale (by which I especially mean the one that has been released by spokespersons, not the ulterior one suspected by many outside observers) should be discussed at length, but only where it can be better detailed and contextualized. I see no obvious way, within the constraints of the lead, to give a precise summary of what the sources say about the honesty or logic of the security assertion. That said, I'm open to being swayed by a concise piece of well-written/balanced prose. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I disagree with the premise of some editors here that the ban is solely anti-Islam and has no security argument behind it. The whole point of the ban is security (or rather, improving security methods by temporarily suspending immigration from risky nations). Whether this is a façade to hide Islamophobic sentiment is irrelevant. We have to take DHS and Trump admin statements into account as well as those of RS to provide a balanced overview here. With that said, per a comment above, Survey 2 proposal is simply too vague and no definite solution. I can only vote for something I definitely know the outcome of. In my opinion it would be smarter to first develop the lede rewrite and present it in the discussion, rather than a future, unknown rewrite. Finally, I think whatever the outcome is, we have to be wary to not include a huge chuck of info and details in the lede; it's the lede, after all. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• No. Agree with BullRangifer that the security issue is a fiction. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, but. Most of *the most reputable* of mainstream sources refer to the seven original countries as having been singled out by Obama, a Democrat. We need to find quite-quality RS that say "Obama had singled them out because security" or "because his State Department was trying to pressure them" or whatever they say. Most likely security, in which case we say security. This is the one part of Trump's predecessor's legacy that he *tried* to keep intact. Yet it's also one of the two(?) most controversial aspects of Trump's presidency (after Russia). That alone makes it noteworthy enough to go in the Trump lead. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Photograph of Leila Lopes

The article on Donald Trump has a sub-section titled "Miss Universe," which describes Trump's ownership of the Miss Universe pageants. A photograph of Leila Lopes as Miss Universe 2011 appears as part of the description. A solo photograph of Lopes is inappropriate in the article, because Lopes alone has nothing to do with Donald Trump. A photo of Trump AND a Miss Universe winner would be much more appropriate. A solo photo of Hillary Clinton would be inappropriate in Trump's article, and the same thing applies to the Miss Universe Pageant.

I previously deleted this photograph, but my edit was reverted. What the hell does Leila Lopes have to do with Donald Trump? The answer: NOTHING. A photograph is supposed to relate to the article in which it appears.

Anthony22 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

What reason did the reverting editor give for reverting? It's always helpful to come with diffs.- MrX 23:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it once and was reverted. I think it adds little informational value about the article's subject and is largely decorative. Time to settle it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed it. It adds nothing to a reader's understanding of President Trump. Images are not article decorations.- MrX 00:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

By this logic, we could remove 90% of pictures. Of course pictures are decorative! Trump's involvement with the Miss Universe franchise is a significant part of his biography, so it's DUE in this… biography article. Now, you raise a legitimate question: "How to best illustrate Miss Universe as it relates with Trump?" We have basically four choices:

1. A group picture of Miss Universe contestants in the time period when Trump owned the pageant
2. A solo picture of a Miss Universe winner in the time period when Trump owned the pageant
3. A picture of a Miss Universe winner together wth Trump
4. The Miss Universe logo

Option #4 is a non-starter: it would look like advertising and there may be copyright fair use issues. The current image is an instance of option #2; there was another one previously, File:Miss Universe Dayana Mendoza en Nicaragua 11.jpg which I had chosen because her "Miss Universe" sash was clearly visible; somebody else then picked Lopes. Anthony22 suggests option #3. However we don't need a picture of the Taj Mahal with Trump's face on it, a picture of Mar-a-Lago with Trump inviting guests in, or a picture of Trump advertising Trump Steaks. so I don't see why the Miss Universe illustration should include Trump's face. We are not writing the hagiography of Mao Ze Dong: despite speculation that Trump suffers a cult of personality, his portrait is not mandated to be everywhere. In a nutshell, I suggest to keep option #2, the portrait of a Miss Universe winner. Could be Lopes or Mendoza or yet another, that's a subjective æsthetical choice. — JFG ^talk 05:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You missed the most obvious option, which is don't have an image. Support no image at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course pictures are decorative! Per MOS:PERTINENCE, images should not be primarily decorative, and this one is. Anybody can imagine what a Miss Universe looks like; you just picture a beautiful young woman with impeccable, glamorous hair and makeup, dressed to the nines and wearing a sash. So the image adds nothing informative to the reader, aside from showing what that particular Miss Universe looked like during the pageant. If the same reasoning applies to other images in the article, feel free to propose removal of some of them, separately—or boldly remove them and see what happens. (I feel that, these days, an article regrettably needs a minimum number of images to draw the reader to the text. I'm willing to accept some number of primarily-decorative images if that's necessary to meet that minimum number. per WP:IAR. But we're well above the minimum in this article and could afford to lose a few.) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Consider that without this image, we have zero illustration of the level-3 section called "Side ventures" which are a notable enough part of Trump's bio as to deserve a sentence in the lede. I would argue that Trump's involvement with Miss Universe is the most notable of his side ventures, and therefore illustrating said side ventures with a picture of a Miss Universe sash is perfectly relevant. About the "do not decorate excessively" aspect, I would note that we are now faced with about three screenfuls of straight prose in the middle of the article: adding a picture here is not excessive. — JFG ^talk 17:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to remove a nondescript building entrance at 40 Wall Street: we have enough buildings in this article already, that's a case of "excessive decoration". Perhaps I can trade this for the restoration of Miss Universe? — JFG ^talk 17:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good trade on all kinds of levels. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A few days with no replies. @Anthony22, MrX, Mandruss, Scjessey, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and MelanieN: Any further input on this? I plead to restore this picture or another Miss Universe. — JFG ^talk 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Since my argument is not primarily about number of images, the trade proposal seems to miss the point. The fact remains that the image is primarily decorative. My objection stands, but it's not what I would call a strong one; I'm not going to RfC with this. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Restoring it makes sense to me. --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it adds anything to the article, but I don't care enough to raise a full-throated objection. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I still oppose the photo. It has very little to do with Trump and conveys no encyclopedic information to readers. Its value is purely decorative, contrary to MOS:PERTINENCE. As far as I can tell, there is no consensus for including it. I have no objection to removing the building entrance photo.- MrX 13:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel a group photo would be better than just a single winner. Altogether I don't really feel the necessity of a photo there. In terms of his "side projects", some sort of image representing the Foundation or University would be better as they are things he founded, but then again it also is fine without any art. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Immigration orders

The article contains duplicated information about the immigration orders in two places. One is under "First 100 days" in a subsection titled "Immigration orders". The other is under "Domestic policy" in a subsection titled "immigration," which also includes a couple of paragraphs on what he said about immigration during the campaign. Both sections are well developed and well referenced, but I don't think we need this in two places - especially in such a crowded biographical article. Any thoughts what we should do about this, and where such information should go? Personally I would leave the orders under "first 100 days" with a brief mention under "Domestic policy-immigration," but I can see arguments for doing it the other way - or keeping it in both places. Comments? (And please, don't anybody go WP:BOLD and start deleting stuff until we reach a consensus here.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Handshakes

See new article at Donald Trump's handshakes. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Why? Sleyece (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm — JFG ^talk 15:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I love it!- MrX 15:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:Thanks for notifying here on this talk page about this. In the future, you may want to notify in addition to, or instead, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Donald Trump. I also note that Trump himself has commented upon this phenomenon [6] [7] [8]. So yeah, Onceinawhile, thank you for the initiative for the new article creation, but in the future if you could please post a new notification also to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Donald Trump, as well. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will add a notice regarding the deletion discussion there. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Rather have a section of Trump anagrams. Objective3000 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Know any good ones? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

"Damn turd pol"? Define "good". Remove if blpvio. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Portrait of Trump during election cycle

You are invited to comment at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Anachronistic Trump portrait. — JFG ^talk 00:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Russia-related articles in Trump sidebar

You are invited to comment at Template talk:Donald Trump series#Too many articles about Russia. — JFG ^talk 05:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sentence about popular vote in “Protests”

Under “Protests,” the article states:

“Some argued that Clinton's popular vote victory meant Trump was not the democratically elected president and should be considered illegitimate.”

Although it is certainly true, what of it? It is also true that some claimed President Obama’s presidency was illegitimate due to his alleged foreign birth. Neither accusation deserves to be legitimized in the biographical articles per se as both are equally untrue regarding legitimacy. President Trump could not have lost an election that never took place. There is no election in the United States for president in which the victor is determined by who carries the most votes nationwide any more than there is one in which the winner is decided by which candidate the electorate finds to be the most photogenic. Considering this fact, here is, I think, the most important point. If there were a presidential election decided by the most votes nationwide, then the campaigns would have been entirely different with the two major candidates spending more time and resources in states which they had little to no realistic chance of winning under the current electoral system. Thus, the assumption that had there been a nationwide popular vote contest that the result would have been the same regarding the popular vote is totally unwarranted as are accusations that “millions of illegal voters” cast ballots in the absence of proof.

I respectfully request a support/oppose vote as to my motion to strike the aforementioned passage as biased due to the charge having no basis in reality and therefore not worthy of mentioning in the article.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think there are four WP articles discussing the claims that Obama was not a legitimate President. Five if you count the article on Corsi's book. But, I’m ambivalent about this mention in the bio. Objective3000 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but in President Obama’s main biographical article? If so, then I don’t think there should be in his case either.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with you, HistoryBuff - even though the source supports it. (The reference cited says, "Some are questioning the legitimacy of Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton by noting that although he took the Electoral College, Clinton won the popular vote.") For one thing, "some" is a weasel word. For another thing, "illegitimacy" has never been a strong theme of the protesters, and there has been no serious movement to overturn the election. So I would say, delete it. Its contribution to this biography article is more negative than positive. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be particularly useful in the bio. Probably not elsewhere either. Objective3000 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete – That's partisan weaseling, not to mention against the U.S. Constitution, Article 2! — JFG ^talk 00:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Looks like consensus to remove it, so I did so. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with the removal. Its a very weaselly addition that smacks of an attempt to retroactively move the goalposts of the election from what everybody knew they were going into the election. Popular vote was never something that mattered, and does not affect legitimacy. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Commenting on Trump’s mental health is fine, psychiatry group says

This is a significant change:

http://time.com/4872343/american-psychoanalytic-association-trump-mental-health/

https://www.statnews.com/2017/07/25/psychiatry-goldwater-rule-trump/

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/25/16025112/goldwater-rule-mental-health-american-psychoanalytic-association-donald-trump

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2017/07/25/crazy-talk-cable-news-cleared-to-talk-trumps-mental-health/#5ed651ad511c

BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And the American Psychiatric Association still says that's a no-no. From the New Yorker (via Verge source) "I think there’s a duty to warn,” psychiatrist Jerrold Post told The New Yorker. “It seems unethical to not contribute at this perilous time.”" Gee, I wonder Dr. Post voted for? I'm not sure what the point of this source dump was, but if it's to add material to the man's biography, it would still likely be a POV BLPVIO. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just because one association still disallows it and the other does, the one does not negate the other. Both should be included. That's what our policies require.

BTW, you shouldn't carelessly throw around "POV BLPVIO" without knowing what it means. In this case, "POV" is a personal attack and failure to AGF. "BLPVIO" only refers to "unsourced" negative content, never to properly sourced content, no matter how negative, especially if the (generic) subject doesn't like it. If they were to object to us documenting their bad behavior, then we really should include it and block them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... No, we just had a talk about this that was unanimous oppose. The new information from this one group does not change policy. PackMecEng (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Not true, BullRangifer. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. That's extremely important. There's "RS" that say all sorts of horrific and repugnant things about the president - they don't all get shoved in the article just because you saw it on the Interwebz. I agree! Fortunately for me, I am very familiar with WP:POV and WP:BLPVIO, so I won't have to worry throwing anything around "without knowing what it means." Nobody's attacking you personally by explaining that your content would likely be POV, though. And block...what, exactly? You lost me on that last part, I'm afraid. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I still don’t see this in an encyclopedia while the person is alive as per previous discussion. But, I wish HT would stop making statements like: Gee, I wonder Dr. Post voted for?. First, not everyone takes every action according to their politics. Secondly, this suggests that a living person is acting unethically and is a BLP vio itself. Objective3000 (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggests to whom, you? Does this gentleman even have a BLP page? Saying that a opinion article and an interviewee for that article is biased is NOT a BLPVIO. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Such commenting is not fine for Wikipedia. There is no significant change in Wikipedia rules and recommendations regarding articles on US presidents and other high-ranking politicians so far, BullRangifer. If you don't want to get problems according to those rules and recommendations, so please don't press for inclusion of partisan statements of some organisations, regardless of so-called RC. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

IMO this kind of remote diagnosing - "armchair psychiatry" - doesn't belong in this (or any) biographical article no matter what various professional associations may say. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Once there's an actual article from a psychiatrist that comments on Trump's mental health, I may support including something. The proceedings of a trade organization aren't relevant for the article at this time, though. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

There have been numerous such articles from psychologists[9] and psychiatrists.[10] IMO none of them should be referenced here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Protest vs inauguration

A sentence in the Protests section states that the number of protesters for the Women's March on Washington "was more than three times the number of people who were at Trump's inaugural speech". This is sourced to some crowd-counting done on both days on aerial views of the Washington mall, by "crowd scientists at the Manchester Metropolitan University." However, this statement is contradicted by numbers actually reported for both events, i.e. roughly 500,000 for the protest and 300,000–600,000 for the inauguration, according to the same crowd science expert from Manchester.[11] Even within the uncertainties, none of these numbers can be called "three times the size" of the other.

Besides the mathematical error, comparing those event attendances is WP:TRIVIA, undue in Trump's main biography (may be informative as a side note in the 2017 Women's March article, to highlight the particularly large following of this protest). Accordingly I deleted the sentence and SPECIFICO reverted me, providing a better source (thanks) which still made the same calculation error. Should we keep this sentence or delete it? — JFG ^talk 17:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, deleting a widely reported statement that could be cited to any of dozens of RS didn't change the underlying facts. Now round two the new rationales for deletion are no more convincing, imo. Ping me when round 3 begins. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As we disagree on the relevance and exactitude of this statement, I'm simply opening up discussion for the wider community. Not that I expect to convince you, my friend! — JFG ^talk 18:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Whilst changing horses in mid-stream. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove The "underlying facts" in this case are that the statement, no matter how well sourced, is objectively false and contradicted by the source itself. We must not print information that is unsupported by its own source. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Even if accurate, the sentence is WP:UNDUE for this article. Trump himself remains obsessed over the size of his inauguration crowd; we don't have to do the same. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this text is in the article to mock his obsession with the crowd size. It comes up in the context of the post-inaugural protests and the comparison was widely cited in the media. The protests do seem noteworthy so it's not clear the estimate and Trump's boasts are off topic here. SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Nah Don’t care much for mine is bigger than yours contests. Objective3000 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2017

Add history with Saturday Night Live to Section 3.3 “Acting and public image”.

Saturday Night Live

Donald Trump’s tenure as a public figure has been parodied and documented on the NBC television show Saturday Night Live (SNL). Trump’s history with the NBC television show Saturday Night Live dates back to 1988. He has hosted the show twice, made a cameo appearance, and been portrayed in skits by several actors on the show.

Hosting

Donald Trump has hosted Saturday Night Live on two occasions. On April 3, 2004 Trump hosted SNL Season 29 Episode 16 with musical guest Toots and The Maytals. On November 7, 2015 Trump hosted SNL Season 41 Episode 4 with musical guest Sia. Trump is one of 17 presidential candidates who have appeared on Saturday Night Live, and the only American President to have hosted the show.

Portrayals

Trump has been played as a character in Saturday Night Live skits by actors Phil Hartman, Darrell Hammond and Alec Baldwin. The Donald Trump character has been included in 47 skits since 1988.

Phil Hartman portrayed Donald Trump 4 times on the show, including the original portrayal in 1988 in a sketch entitled "A Trump Christmas ". Darrell Hammond portrayed Donald Trump 21 times on the show. Alec Baldwin portrayed Donald Trump 22 times on the show, including portrayal of Trump during his presidency User129862 (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources

•  Not done – These would be appropriate additions to our sub-article Donald Trump in popular culture. It's overkill for the main biography. Then, a summary sentence could be added here. — JFG ^talk 17:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Done (summary) – I just added a short summary of the most notable Trump parodies.[12] Hope this helps. — JFG ^talk 18:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)