Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: oldest and wealthiest
• #RfC: False statements

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

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

---

Should the lead section mention that Trump is the "oldest and wealthiest" president? — JFG ^talk 15:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The current, longstanding phrase in paragraph 2 of the lead includes:

He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, and the first without prior military or government service.

I would suggest replacing this with:

He became the first president without prior military or government service.

In recent informal discussions, some editors have said those qualifiers are unimportant statistics best left to specialized articles such as List of presidents of the United States by age and List of Presidents of the United States by net worth instead of the lead section of Trump's BLP. It was also argued that "oldest" is ageist and "wealthiest" is vulgar, and that it all was "irrelevant trivia". In support of the inclusion, it was argued that those facts were well-covered during Trump's campaign, and that similar statistics appear in other presidents' biographies. This RfC aims to resolve the disagreement. — JFG ^talk 15:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey: oldest and wealthiest

Please express your preference with Keep to preserve the status quo or with Delete to remove the "oldest and wealthiest" qualifiers. A brief rationale is welcome here. Longer arguments should go to the #Discussion: oldest and wealthiest section.

• Delete - I remember "oldest" and "wealthiest" were talking points during the election, but I honestly don't think they are biographically significant. Nor are they defining characteristics of his presidency. This is exactly the kind of trimming I would like to see more of in this article. Less is always more. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete – While Trump's lack of military or government experience is relevant to his presidency, and apparently unprecedented in the USA, his age and his wealth are mere trivia. Reagan was old too, and Washington was filthy rich for his day. — JFG ^talk 17:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete not at all defining characteristics and not lead-worthy, especially compared to his actions in office, though including in article body wouldn't be so bad. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep to preserve the status quo, no real reason to mess with a long-standing 2 year norm and what little stability this article has. Also, oldest and wealthiest seem to follow precedents of identifying characteristics in past presidents such as age remarks for Ronald Reagan or youth and religion of John F. Kennedy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - this is interesting information. He is a lot older than his immediate predecessors (though only slightly older than Reagan was as President). He also seems to be a lot wealthier than other President, according to the linked table. This is worth noting.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete on second thoughts. These are simply relative measures that will be out of date sooner or later. He is not likely to be the oldest President for long, given the increases in longevity. Wealth is hard to measure over time, and this is not particularly notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - There is a long tradition to identify presidents according to records they hold in regards to their presidency. Ronald Reagan was widely reported to be the oldest back then, James Buchanan as the only bachelor to hold the office, John F. Kennedy as being the youngest to be elected and the only Catholic to be president, James Garfield as the last to be born in a log cabin etc. This sort of trivia exists for most presidents. One argument for deletion is that this information is well known to most readers because they refer to the current president, whose wealth and age are widely discussed in the media, but removing it now for being banal only to add it a few years later, when the information won't seem as obvious sounds unnecessary to me. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per JFG. Gandydancer (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - trivia. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The article Inauguration of Donald Trump conspicuously doesn't mention it, but that is not a reason to remove it here, because Presidency of Donald Trump#Transition period and inauguration mentions it (it is a WP:Summary style article). If anything, the Inauguration article should be changed to mention it in its lead. I believe that it should be kept here when similar leads, most notably that of Ronald Reagan, include such information. wumbolo ^^^ 21:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Although Reagan was much more well known for being the oldest president than Trump was, it still keeps things simple for the reader. The statements are neither trivial, nor do they add unnecessary fluff to the article that isn't notable or noteworthy.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Neither of these items has received nearly as much attention in the reliable sources as the rest of the content in the lead section. I understand these superlatives have historical significance, but I highly doubt Trump will be known in 5, 10, 50 years for being the wealthiest or oldest president. He will likely be known for bringing his business background to the White House, but that's something substantially different. To be clear, however, I fully support having this material in the body of our article. R2 (bleep) 19:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Wealth qualifier is unconfirmed. No reliable source. Gerntrash (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Oldest but delete wealthiest (Summoned by bot) His age is undeniable, his wealth is in dispute. Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I think those terms shouldn't stay in the paragraph, because belongs to the Peacock terms [1] and afect to the neutral point of view.--AnbyG (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep oldest. Delete wealthiest. Ronald Reagan talks about oldest; seems like a fine precedent. Looking at the source for "wealthiest"[2], it's nowhere near strong enough for the lead of an article about a President. The source's link for $525 million for Washington goes nowhere. And I'm skeptical of anyone's methodology for comparing wealth levels 240 years apart.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep oldest, delete wealthiest per Adoring nanny. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: oldest and wealthiest

@JFG: - some editors have opined that "oldest" is ageist and "wealthiest" is vulgar - Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't see more than one editor saying either.[3] I'd ask that you edit that for accuracy. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You are right, and in fairness only one editor highlighted the comparison with Reagan, Kennedy and Roosevelt's biographies.[4] The point is to show that those were arguments advanced in the discussion. I'll edit to avoid referring to a particular editor or group thereof. — JFG ^talk 15:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think oldest should be included because it was a common description for WH Harrison and Reagan. The "prior military or government service" is clumsy. All previous presidents had held either elected office as a congressman, senator or governor, or had served in the Cabinet or were generals. If Trump had worked as an election official, or had been in the National Guard, his lack of experience would still be relevant. Also, not sure if we was the wealthiest, particularly if inflation is taken into account. We don't even know if he has a positive net worth. TFD (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think "prior military or government service" was used in the media at the time. Does "government service" have a special meaning for Americans? Because I would have thought "military service" was "government service", and "government service" could include working as a clerk in the sanitation department.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I vaguely recall some discussion about this. Military service may be government service in some sense, but that doesn't mean Americans would interpret the term that way. We would normally think of people working in city halls, state capitals, and Washington, not in military bases and foreign countries. The military take direction from their government but serve their country, and they are not the same thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I also vaguely recall a discussion but I think it was more about whether what elected officials do should be called "service." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we could lift this ambiguity by replacing "service" with "experience". The target articles is called List of Presidents of the United States by previous experience. — JFG ^talk 19:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I rephrased the sentence to make it adhere more closely to the sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think, in general, statements about the "oldest" should be avoided. Given the steady increase in human longevity, we should expect US Presidents to be increasingly older and to live longer (like Jimmy Carter). This is not notable and not worth noting. However, in Trump's case he is significantly older than Obama etc. There has been speculation that this could be a factor in his Presidency, and he could be or become medically unfit.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jack Upland: There'll be older presidents sure, but if we're just going to have a list of presidents by age anyway, we might as well make mention of it in the current president's article. It's more about simplicity than anything in my opinion. It's not like the US presidents articles are filled with tons of trivia as is.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to prevent auto-archive of this section? starship.paint (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Done.[5] See {{DNAU}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Now with easier-to-use {{pin section}}. — JFG ^talk 08:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

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

RfC: False statements

A recent discussion was archived without reaching a definite conclusion. Based on comments from various editors there, I am formally suggesting a change of the current wording, which was selected in the prior RfC about this subject, and is in my opinion unnecessarily wordy. — JFG ^talk 15:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Current version:

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.

Proposed version:

Fact-checkers have documented an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during Trump's campaign and presidency.

— JFG ^talk 15:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Amended proposal:

Fact-checkers have documented that Trump made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.

I am putting forward this amended proposal following remarks by several editors in the first day of the RfC. — JFG ^talk 11:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey: false statements

Please express your preference to Support or Oppose the proposed change, with a brief rationale. Longer arguments should go to the #Discussion: false statements section.

• Oppose - Trump's falsehoods are a defining characteristic of his presidency. Without gazing too deeply into the crystal ball, I think the Trump presidency will forever be associated with an astonishing level of mendacity. As such, I like the way the existing text spells this out a bit more assertively. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  What happened to Less is always more?[6] Seriously, I think a shorter sentence is more impactful in asserting the issue. — JFG ^talk 15:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Not at the expense of missing something important, obviously. Nothing is more important to Trump's biography than the thing that has defined him, and that's the fact that he likes to tell porky pies. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

In your proposed version the issue is that someone somewhere made a whole bunch of false or misleading statements while Trump was president. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have addressed this deficiency in the amended proposal above. — JFG ^talk 11:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Still oppose, I'm afraid. The existing text remains superior. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Too soon/Oppose - The passage in question is the result of an RfC that was open for more than a month a mere few months ago, focused exclusively on that little bit of content, and received over 10,000 words from over 30 editors. One of the precious few editors willing to spend their time doing uninvolved closes spent a considerable amount of it assessing that consensus and writing the close. The length of the passage was pointed out at the beginning of the proposal for it, lest anyone fail to consider it, and yet the passage received wide support. Thus the length argument has been duly rejected and it's not constructive to raise it again hoping for a different outcome. This is not how we should be spending our limited time. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The proposed wording obscures the fact that Trump made the false statements. That deviates far from almost every reliable source that has reported on the subject. We must be clear and direct. - MrX 🖋 16:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I also oppose the amended proposal because it shifts the focus to fact checkers. I would support Neutrality's proposal, or something like "Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency." - MrX 🖋 11:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support The laundry lists of Trumps alleged deceptions is what is unprecedented.--MONGO (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons states by Scjessey, Mandruss, and MrX, but I would favor a shorter "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency, at a level unprecedented in American politics" if someone proposed that. Neutrality^talk 18:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality - the statement "at a level unprecedented in American politics" would have to be attributed, otherwise we'd be treading in SYNTH territory or opinion rather than fact. The kind of coverage Trump has gotten is what's unprecedented, otherwise I would imagine the same could be said of a few former presidents. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the reliable sources (not opinion pieces) directly support the "unprecedented" language, and this is a matter of fact rather opinion. Neutrality^talk 17:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support — the current version attributes the assessment of unprecedented mendacity to the media, which plays into the "fake news" narrative (itself mendacious), while the proposed version attributes the assessment to fact-checkers. That said, Neutrality's proposed language would be even better. soibangla (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Doesn’t matter — Devoting so much contributor time to trivial matters like this contributes to outsiders’ perceptions of Wikipedia as largely dysfunctional on controversial subjects. Time to move on. Greg L (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too vague. I support Neutrality's version over both of the proposed versions by OP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - let’s not revisit it yet again and so soon. The change in portrayal also seems unnecessary and not preceded by groundwork. I think lead edits like this one should be a discussion first to show interests and concerns, not this every time jump straight to an A/B choice RFC that has not done substantial prep work in TALK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support — the new version is shorter, to the point, and more neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons stated by MrX, Scjessey, Mandruss, and Soibangla. I also think that Neutrality's version would be even better. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Following several remarks about the clarity of the sentence, I have amended the proposed text. @Scjessey, Mandruss, MrX, Neutrality, Snooganssnoogans, Markbassett, and Space4Time3Continuum2x: Could you reconsider your !votes in light of that? — JFG ^talk 11:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No. The current longer version is accurate while ascribing the conclusion "unprecedented" to fact-checkers is not. I don't think that at this stage we need to point out that "fact-checkers documented" and "the media described" but, if we do it, we should do it accurately. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This amended proposal also does not work for me for the reasons that Space4Time addressed above. I prefer my proposal above. Neutrality^talk 14:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No, since mine is a process objection. The hard-won consensus content should be considered good enough that we can better spend this time on other things. That will always be my position in situations like this. Thanks for the ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support for conciseness. — JFG ^talk 11:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  I would also support "Media and academics have documented that…", per discussion below following Starship.paint's comments. — JFG ^talk 08:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to above proposed version - to say that Fact-checkers ... documented ... an unprecedented number is inaccurate. As one can see from the sources already in the article at Donald Trump#False statements (that's 305-315 at the time of this post, none of the sources describing unprecedented are fact-checkers. [7] / [8] [9] / [10] [11] / [12] / [13] / [14] / [15] / [16] Rather, they are academics or the media. I would instead add to the lede that The statements have been documented by fact-checkers; academics and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Alternatively, Neutrality's version is also okay. starship.paint (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  After discussion with JFG below in the Discussion section, a version I would support is Media and academics have documented that Trump made an unprecedented number of false and misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. starship.paint (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Honestly, I don't think the difference is that large between the two version, but while we're here, the proposed version has a small edge over the current one. This is mainly because it's more concise and because saying that something "was described by the media" gives fodder to the "fake news" crowd who will claim that this is a conspiracy against the president by the news media, rather than demonstrable and well documented facts. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - it says what needs to be said succinctly and in compliance with NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Neutrality offers a good choice for wording and Starship gives some good advise as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - It's important to stay neutral. The current way seems like it's "Bashing" Trump. I don't care if you like or hate the man, the wording needs to be neutral.Gregnator (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Account^ created on the day the vote was cast. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - current wording is clearer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - If the wording must be more precise, Neutrality's proposal is the most favorable and accurate. Teammm ^talk
  _email 01:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the amended wording is less wordy and more neutral; yet still tries to convey the same meaning without trying to color the reader's opinion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Conveys the same information more concisely and with more punch, which is always a good thing in such a dense article. Also slightly reduces the Trump-versus-the-media framing, which is contrary to our core policies. R2 (bleep) 19:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: the original language is preferable; it's less weasely and matches sources better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I prefer the original wording. The new proposal obscures the fact that Trump made the false statements, as noted by MrX. --Tataral (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The original wording looks to reflect the sourcing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – The section itself needs rewriting for less-wooden style, to indicate depth of issue without details and statistics that already have an article devoted to them. Trump’s cavalier attitude toward facts, in the real estate development scene (Bonwit Teller site, Trump International Toronto) as well as during his presidency, could be summarized with one or two full-length sentences.Jessegalebaker (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • - Note: 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 has made few or no other edits outside this article. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot)Support as it's more concise. While I agree that stripped of context and put side by side, the new version seems less strongly worded because Trump is not the subject noun of the sentence, keep in mind that this sentence is currently buried in the middle of a paragraph where every other sentence begins with either "Trump" or "He" (meaning Trump). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The subject is the falsehoods, and it does not matter who discovered/checked/compiled them, if he did it, and it is documented, then we say it. Trump called someone "nasty", then denied it claiming "fake news" - It was recorded and had been on national news the day before he denied it ever happened. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: false statements

JFG, you made this proposal. Can you explain your decision to limit the description of an unprecedented number to fact-checkers, when the body of the article (and the sources) doesn't actually say that fact-checkers have said that? starship.paint (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The original sentence says three things: 1) fact-checkers have documented a bunch of false and misleading statements by Trump; 2) the magnitude and raw count of false and misleading statements is unprecedented; 3) media have been pounding on this issue. My proposed version aims to simplify this state of affairs, and the original long-winded phrase, by focusing on points 1 and 2. You raise the issue that it's only media and academics that have used the "unprecedented" qualifier, I wasn't aware of that, and I'm pretty sure we can find fact-checker sources that use similar language. If I'm mistaken, then perhaps we should replace "unprecedented" with some other qualifier (staggering? unusual? unfathomable? just large?), but that would be a different discussion. — JFG ^talk 19:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you want to simplify the sentence, but it seems it has lost its original meaning. I think fact-checkers are a subset of the media, and I don’t think there is very many of them that actively track Trump, probably less than seven? So I don’t see why we need to focus on fact-checkers when the wider media, plus the academics, have already given their descriptions. That’s already assuming you can find enough fact-checker sources to establish DUE weight. I note that there are two fact checker sources above (Kessler/Toronto’s Dale) but instead of putting unprecedented in their voice, they chose to quote other people. starship.paint (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it’s basically three stating overall totals - Politifact of Tampa Bay Times, FactCheck.org of Annenberg center, and the Fact Checker of the Washington Post. The Toronto Star is also a player at a lower prominence. Not an really documented in detail or described methods. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Well okay, but if you were to look below, the sources in this article saying unprecedented aren't these three publications. starship.paint (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mythdon: - could you read the below comment, thank you. starship.paint (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla, Jack Upland, PraiseVivec, Atsme, and Gregnator: - per your support votes, have you guys actually checked this article and the sources as to whether JFG's version is even accurate? In the sources from the article, which you can find below, they do not say Fact-checkers ... documented ... an unprecedented number. starship.paint (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That’s a good catch, hadn’t noticed that. I’m striking my vote for now. soibangla (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the academic sources for unprecedented: paper by Carole McGranahan, quote from "historians", quote from Michael R. Beschloss, quote from "White House scholars and other students of government" and George Edwards, quote from Douglas Brinkley, paper by Heidi Taksdal Skjeseth, paper by Donnel Stern. Which of these are fact checkers? starship.paint (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the journalists / writer for media sources for unprecedented: Chris Cillizza, Susan Glasser, Maria Konnikova. Which of these are fact checkers? starship.paint (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I hear you. So would you support "Media and academics have documented that Trump made an unprecedented number of false and misleading statements during his campaign and presidency"? I kept fact-checkers in there because they were prominently featured in arguments during the prior RfC. I'm personally fine putting Trump's statements in wikivoice instead of attributing them to anybody, but that would surely get much-stronger pushback. It's hard to achieve neutrality without weaseling. — JFG ^talk 11:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: - I would support that. It does reflect the current body. By the way, I just found one fact-checker source on his unprecedented falsehoods as a presidential candidate. If you restart this ... consider wikivoice as a third option. starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Good. I think this RfC is now too far underway to change anything, especially not adding a third option. But you could perhaps qualify your "strong oppose" in the survey section by stating that you would support the "media and academics" variant that we just discussed. I'll mention it next to my !vote as well. — JFG ^talk 08:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Done, added just below my vote. starship.paint (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Me too. 🤝 — JFG ^talk 08:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Moving content from this article

I would like to bring attention to some of the excessive detail that we have on this article. For example in the early life section, the last two paragraphs are about events that have happened in the last ten years, although they reflect on his early life. They don't appear to belong on this article, but removing this content from Wikipedia altogether seems like censorship so I'm hesitant to take that step. Ideally this article would be more like Barack Obama, generally regarded as a good article, where most sections are essentially summaries of sub-articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: support splitting this up, but not removing completely - I've had similar thought recently --DannyS712 (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I would start with something like Early life of Donald Trump, and moving more of the content here to the subarticle about his business career, which should probably be combined with the article about his wealth. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The last paragraph probably doesn't belong in this article. The second to the last paragraph does, but it can be be shortened.- MrX 🖋 12:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Article size

Within a space of 24 hours, the article has been tagged as {{too long}} and we exceeded the template limits yet again (see archives for history). We still have either 20 months or 68 months to go and this problem is not going away for some time.

The {{too long}} template message suggests we consider splitting, condensing, or adding subheadings (unclear how the latter makes an article shorter). Short of moving the bottom half of the article to Donald Trump, page 2, I see no way to split that hasn't already been done. As I see it, that leaves two options:

1. Scalpel approach. Every time we exceed the template limit, drop one or more non-citation templates as was done here today. Or find some prose to remove with its associated citation templates.
2. Chainsaw approach. This being the top-level biography, remove the recentist near-daily chronology of politics and government and stop adding that kind of content.

Support #2 as far easier, while making a lot of sense anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I assume the "page 2" proposal has been made in jest. We absolutely should not have the daily chronology of politics on this article, as you say. There's also frankly too much prose in this article as well, because more keeps getting added without anything being removed or replaced. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I support the spirit of #2, but editors will have different opinions about what's important and what's not. We can't just delete recent information if it's important. WP:RECENTISM should be seen as a guiding principal, not a rule.- MrX 🖋 12:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we should be able to reach a consensus endorsing a "resolution" that content related to his 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. That would clearly exclude "Trump also praised Poland under the EU-skeptic, anti-immigrant Law and Justice party (PiS) as a defender of Western civilization." Merely removing that and everything like it, and pointing to the consensus whenever somebody attempts to add something new like it, would in my opinion solve the size issues for the remainder of his presidency. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution would not apply, but I don't think there would be any editors claiming that the example given is likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. And nobody would call it summary-level in any case. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree to this, without the need for a specific resolution. I think we can exercise judgement here and let editors remove what they see fit to remove along these lines, and restore it if there is disagreement. In general anything that looks like it was added to the article the day that it happened doesn't belong on the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That's essentially no change to what we have now, which is what got us to where we are now. I would have already done tons of BOLD removals (and BRD reverts of additions, to the small extent allowed by ArbCom), but I knew that would be seen as disruptive without a group agreement that those removals move the article in the right direction. It would also consume an inordinate amount of time debating the principle at the detail level, one removal at a time. I therefore strongly oppose that approach. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You waited for a BOT to announce this page was too long to finally agree something must be done about it? You restored totally tangential material that exists solely to malign Trump supporters and has nearly zero to do with this BLP. You recently argued that there is no reason things cannot appear verbatim in not only this article but in 3,4,5 other daughter articles as well, which totally defeats the purpose of having daughter articles. Are you considering forking numerous sections or just trimming the fat? For the record, the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama featured articles are 300K and 340K respectively and this one, which isn't even within a hope and prayer of being rated a Good Article, much less a featured one is just over 450K.--MONGO (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Please look for a fight elsewhere, we're trying to have a constructive discussion here. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I really am not looking for a fight, but I do want to hear how you plan on trimming this when the opposite has been true Mandruss...do you want help or is this just talk? Can you pick sections in particular you think need to be trimmed or moved whole or in part to daughter articles or perhaps new articles?--MONGO (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Language like do you want help or is this just talk? belies your claim that you are not looking for a fight. Of course I want to help, and of course this is not just talk. I gave one illustrative example, and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to extrapolate that to the numerous other examples like it. I think you've largely missed the gist of my comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Last few times I tried to keep some of the recentism at bay and keep this article from spinning out of control it simply led to nonstop arguments and some of the worst lack of AGF I have ever encountered on this website. So lets say I start cleaning up things, am I once again going to have to explain every single adjustment?--MONGO (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Well gosh, that sounds a lot like what I said here, so shouldn't we be on the same side on this? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Lets look at the Barack Obama article, a Featured level article. It has roughly 500 sources...and I think that is excessive, but this one has over 900 sources. Kbs are also based on the space taken up by sources, so one way the "fat" can be trimmed right off without losing content is to simply dump the less authoritative reliable sources and especially, unless something has been totally in nonstop dispute, cease backing it up with 4,5 6 separate sources, many of which only parrot what the primary source says anyway. One might be able to trim 25-30K just by a mass reduction of redundancy in sources.--MONGO (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes! More sauce, fewer sources! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we could certainly trim redundant sources starting with the less reputable ones first. However, it is incumbent upon any editor removing sources to make absolutely sure that the remaining source(s) fully verifies the article text as written.- MrX 🖋 16:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I’d just like to say that if you remove information, can you check whether it is already present in a sub-article or a related article. If no, insert it there. Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I support removal of whatever falls under RECENTISM, has no lasting value, and/or represents yada yada opinions & gossip that are not supported by corroborated factual information. The article is not a summary; rather, it's more like a scrapbook of news articles. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this article is not well constructed, since it has way too much throughout that is unnecessary. For example, the start of the article lists dozens of his policies, when that is not something necessary in the lede. His travel ban was major, but that was over two years ago, and it is no longer a large issue either way. Same goes for a lot of other fluff that belongs in separate articles. BobRoberts14 (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

The lede is absolutely the last place to begin cutting, and also by far the most difficult. There's a ton of low hanging fruit in sections on early life, family, religion, his business career, the election, and his presidency to trim away at first. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I still believe the lede needs to be cut, because some of the policies aren't as major as policies that aren't even in the lede. Obama's policy part of the lede is as long as Donald Trump's, even though Obama was president for six more years. BobRoberts14 (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

It`s spelled lead...this has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama...Support #1..there is nothing in this article that supposedly isn`t in by concensus..one step at a time..keep what is relevant..add what is relevant. 2600:1702:2340:9470:5035:7312:706E:A981 (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for resolution

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.

---

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.

• Support as proposer, and per my comments in the preceding subsection. I ask those who haven't read them to do so, as they comprise my argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I agree that this article needs to be trimmed in many areas, and certain parts of the need to be removed and/or replaced with more important information. BobRoberts14 (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14
• Support the resolution. If only this could apply to all biographies! The problem I see is that "likely to have a lasting impact" is a judgement call that requires peering into a crystal ball somewhat. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think the following will require a judgment call to remove per the resolution: "Trump also praised Poland under the EU-skeptic, anti-immigrant Law and Justice party (PiS) as a defender of Western civilization." It isn't even summary-level. Just eliminating all the things like that will yield a very significant reduction in article size. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support as common sense. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:5035:7312:706E:A981 (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Struck double vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm against the creation of local guidelines in general. Decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis based on global community standards. R2 (bleep) 16:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  We have 35 local guidelines at #Current consensus, and they are quite useful to have. A local guideline doesn't become unuseful when it has a broader scope. The material affected by this resolution doesn't need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and it's already been stated that anything that's debatable isn't affected.

  Orthodoxy has its place, but it needs to be justifiable beyond general aphorisms and "that's how it's always been done". Innovate, don't stagnate. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Those aren't local guidelines. I disagree with that approach; it would just lead to procedural trouble down the road when decisions are being made about specific content. R2 (bleep) 22:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's looking like it will pass, so we will get to test the accuracy of your crystal ball. Some (including me, to some extent) were concerned about problems that might be created by the consensus list, and it turned out that the concerns were unfounded. Anything can be reversed or modified if it doesn't work out—the sky won't fall in that case—and risk aversion is one of the project's worst problems. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Create the article...include any and all referenced material..trump`s opinion of Poland, the EU and immigration is political not personal..the defender of western civilization assertion is more related to the mental health section in the health of trump article..it`s an absurd assertion. 2600:1702:2340:9470:FD62:44DA:A0F8:8960 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - though I’d suggest switch ‘likely to have lasting’ judgement into ‘has shown lasting’ of objective facts. I’m an advocate for at least a 48 hour waiting period before hot story du jour tries for an edit, at least on new stories. The insert on the same-day that a new topic breaks seems just impossible to know what WEIGHT it will have, or what additional material will show up. Generally though I agree and suggest an approach from the positive side, set norms on ‘what kinds of topic’ and ‘what level’ definitely fits to guide now and in the future. A series of individual cuts also good. Markbassett (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the article includes far too much detailed information about his presidency, much of which fails lasting value, and I'll briefly mention that we already have a Presidency of Donald Trump article and several forks. We've created Trumpapedia. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support --v/r - TP 23:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time because it's too early to say exactly what will have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy, and what constitutes borderline or debatable will be endlessly debated. Let's wait and see. soibangla (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Soibangla: Sue me for the WP:BLUDGEON vio.

  Trump also praised Poland under the EU-skeptic, anti-immigrant Law and Justice party (PiS) as a defender of Western civilization.

  Would you say that it's too early to say whether that will have a "lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy"? Really? Do you think it will be endlessly debated whether it's borderline or debatable? If not, I reiterate (again) that that and other things like it are the only things affected by this resolution.

  Regardless, on the off chance that something like this is removed, and it subsequently proves to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy, it can be added back once the lasting impact reveals itself. The article is not a repository for items of unlikely but theoretically possible long-term impact. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Indeed this article should not be a day-by-day compilation of Trump uttering blah and talking heads uttering OMG, Trump said blah. Sure, assessing what is indeed impactful rather than a story-du-jour may require some editorial judgment calls, but that's our job as encyclopedists. — JFG ^talk 03:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  I wrote an essay about a year ago that addresses this exact point. WP:TRUMPHATE.--v/r - TP 03:51, 18 June 2019 (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.

Merger of Health of Donald Trump

A deletion discussion has resulted in a consensus to merge Health of Donald Trump here. I propose that this merger should include all content in that article cited to sources generally considered to be reliable sources. Thoughts? bd2412 T 23:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be better off in a different article, such as a longer one called "Personal Life of Donald Trump" that includes a lot of the extra information from the "Family and personal life" section of his current article. The "Family and personal life" section of his article is far too long, especially compared to other presidents, and it could be its own article and combined with the Health of Donald Trump. BobRoberts14 (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

• Oppose for the reasons mentioned in the close. Hopefully we don't have to get a review of the close because there were too many that said drop the armchair analysis and leave only the valid medical diagnosis based on an actual examination. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Adding - BD2412, your edit summary: (→‎Health of Donald Trump: I am amenable to the compromise proposal TParis has made above to convert this into an article specifically on the phenomenon of a substantial number of mental health professionals making claims about a specific patient that they have not examined, and the response of the APA and other governing bodies to that practice.) ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Send to Personal life of Donald Trump, along with content from here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy close We had this discussion, BD2412. Jo-Jo's closure rationale summed up the consensus that only some of the material gets copied per WP:BLP, WP:MEDRS and WP:GOSSIP. Restarting this discussion and hoping for a different result is disruptive.--v/r - TP 01:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The outcome of the discussion was merge. The question now is what, specifically, should be merged. bd2412 T 01:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That's an oversimplification of the result. A simplification that favors you. The full closure states "there seems to be a consensus that some of the material [emphasis mine] should be covered somewhere (such as in Donald Trump)". The entire 4th paragraph covers this. The final statement in that paragraph states "That does not rule out that content could be copied into other articles if need be, of course." which supports my interpretation because this sentence would be unnecessary if the closer intended to read consensus as "merge all".--v/r - TP 02:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I didn't say "merge all". I proposed to merge "all content in that article cited to sources generally considered to be reliable sources". Anything in the article that is not reliably sourced should, of course, be excluded from any merge. bd2412 T 03:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
        • You literally said "I propose that this merger should include all content in that article," in other words, "merge all". All of that does not belong in his main article. Bob Roberts 03:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
          • If you stopped reading the sentence at that point, you missed out on a pretty important qualification. bd2412 T 04:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry, BD2412, but that explanation doesn't make sense. All content on Wikipedia needs to be cited to reliable sources. Especially on a BLP and especially with regards to medical information about a BLP and especially in areas of discretionary sanctions. If there was any content that wasn't connected to a RS, then we all should've removed it already. So, I have a hard time understanding what you think the delta is between what was in that article and what is reliably sourced. In this case, "all reliably sourced content" and "all content" should be synonymous. So, it seems to me that you do want to copy all content. My argument is that despite the reliable sourcing, much of this is speculation and gossip and isn't suitable for a encyclopedia - especially not with regard to medical information. That's why I am okay with having the content in another context, but not in the context of Donald Trump's health. It's not responsible of us as editors to do that.--v/r - TP 11:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The article Health of Donald Trump has way too much fluff, including a ton of speculation. The article should have just been deleted, and a small amount of the information should be included here, or in a new article called "Personal Life of Donald Trump", since his section has far more than that of any other President, especially when including sub-articles. Including "all the content" would increase this article's length way too much, and make his health seem more important than any of the other Personal Life sub-sections. Bob Roberts 01:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• I would agree with having a Personal life of Donald Trump article, with the health information being included there. Health information can be condensed to a more summary style, but it is still worth mentioning that the various health assessments that have been made have, in fact, been made and responded to. There have been several occasions where Trump has assessed his own mental health, verbally or by tweet, as being a "stable genius". He has not said these things in a vacuum. bd2412 T 01:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that his health is important, but there is far too much information in the Health of Donald Trump article to include it all in the article Donald Trump. Much of it is just trivial information that is not very important. Bob Roberts 01:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Triviality is, to a degree, a matter of opinion. I think, for example, that it is a notable historical fact that Trump is clinically obese - the first clinically obese President since William Howard Taft (Clinton was close, but his BMI never rose from the "overweight" to the "obese" category), and one of only six clinically obese Presidents in U.S. history (the others were Taft, Teddy Roosevelt, William McKinley, Grover Cleveland, and Zachary Taylor). I don't think that it is necessary to include all of the third-party mental health assessments, but it is worth mentioning that a number of mental health professionals have made negative assessments, for which they were criticized by their governing body, and that Trump's response was to state on several occasions that he was a stable genius. bd2412 T 03:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Notability isn't a matter of opinion though. It should depend on how important the reliable sources consider that to be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

First off, did Wikipedia just have an update? I previously only saw white and black while editing in source editor, but now I also see other colors, such as blue, green, and purple. Second, I did not say the entire article is trivial, I said that most of it is. More than half the article is just repeating the same things: trump's physicians said he does not have any problems, most psychiatrists believe he is narcissistic, and he is obese. Bob Roberts 03:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

We have generally determined notability based on whether something is in fact independently reported in multiple reliable sources. How important is it? Well, there are plenty of notable people whose health reliable sources generally do not comment on at all, unless something drastic happens (for example, there is currently substantial reporting on the health of David Ortiz, who was recently shot, and I think everyone would agree that his health status after being shot is now a notable piece of information to include in the article). As I said, I have no problem condensing the several paragraphs of armchair psychiatry down to a single sentence indicating that this is what third-party mental health experts have tended to say. bd2412 T 04:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• (Closing admin of the AFD on the Health of Donald Trump article) On request on my talk page, I've amended the closing statement on the AFD a little; people in this discussion might be interested in it. One consideration is that people have been concerned that normal reliable sources might not necessarily be reliable in this context of medical information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: - re "the good material supported by top-notch sources", just for clarification, would "top-notch sources" include any of the following: CNN, BBC News, NBC News, Fox News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Hill, The New Yorker, Time, Vox, Vanity Fair, Mother Jones, The New Republic, Forbes, The Independent, U.S. News, The Atlantic, and Psychology Today? bd2412 T 12:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The discussion didn't specify any source, but I'd probably be wary of all news media. They are typically not very good sources for specific medical information. Also anything overly trivial, gossipy or based on armchair analysis as these are the things that have raised concerns in the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Trump's mental health was the topic e.g. of the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump by 27 leading psychiatrists and psychologists. Many articles published in news media describe the assessments of such experts. Obviously we shouldn't use random news media as sources for "specific medical information", the issue here is more about expert assessment of publicly available information than about "specific medical information" as that term is typically understood. --Tataral (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• There is already consensus to merge the content into this article so the opposes and speedy closes here are without effect.- MrX 🖋 12:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. It has already been decided that the article on his health is to be merged into this article. If anyone opposes that decision they will need to bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I myself opposed merging the articles and argued that most of the health material belongs in a sub article rather than the main article, but evidently most editors didn't agree with that and thought the material should be covered here. So now we need to include the material of that article somewhere here. The bulk of the material, that is also the most relevant and that has the best references, is about his mental health, an extremely notable topic that has received an extreme amount of very high-quality coverage (there are no books or scholarly works on his physical health, which is regarded as a somewhat trivial and unremarkable topic of little relevance for his conduct as president or his policies). --Tataral (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support merge with caveats - surely local consensus here trumps whatever was decided at the other article? At a time when we are desperately trying to find ways to trim the article, we don't need a bunch of health cruft dumped in here as well. We need to be extremely choosy about what we include, regardless of the outcome of that deletion discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Cmt: It wasn't really decided "at [another] article" but as part of the wider and more public AfD process, and there is an established way to appeal an AfD decision: Wikipedia:Deletion review. I think the decision was wrong and that the vast majority of the material belongs in a separate sub article and not here, precisely because we're trying to trim the article, but that's the decision that was made. --Tataral (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @@Scjessey: Just ignore Tataral. He's ignoring consensus at the AfD which was to only merge some. That's in line with how you feel as well.--v/r - TP 21:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      • There is an established procedure for you to appeal the decision to merge if you disagree with it: Wikipedia:Deletion review. Otherwise I suggest that you knock it off. --Tataral (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't disagree with the close. I disagree with your interpretation of it. Jo-Jo is very clear that the consensus is that only some of the material gets merged. You're intentionally disregarding that bit and I am tempted to take you to WP:AE over your blatant disregard for it. I have no need for deletion review because my reading of Jo-Jo's close takes their entire closure into context.--v/r - TP 01:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - being deleted largely because of material not worth having in a daughter article, much less deserving of a more prominent position here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Health and lifestyle proposal

I propose this as a merge/replacement for the current content under 'Health and lifestyle'. I trimmed some of the existing material to keep the size roughly the same.

Since the early days of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, his physical and mental health have been a subject of public debate. Trump was seventy years old when he took office, surpassing Ronald Reagan as the oldest person to assume the presidency. Comments on his age, weight and lifestyle have raised questions about his physical health.

Trump does not drink alcohol, a reaction to his older brother Fred Trump Jr.'s alcoholism and early death. He has stated that he has never smoked cigarettes or used drugs, including marijuana. He avoids tea and coffee, but fast food is a favorite cuisine of his. Trump has said he prefers three to four hours of sleep per night.

In December 2015, Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a superlative-laden letter of health, which stated that if elected, Trump "will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency". Bornstein noted that Trump had an appendectomy at age 10, but made no mention of the bone spurs that Trump and his campaign said caused his medical deferment from the military at age 22. According to Bornstein in 2018, Trump himself had dictated the contents of the December 2015 letter. A follow-up letter by Bornstein in September 2016 showed Trump's blood pressure, liver and thyroid functions to be in normal ranges, and that he takes a statin for high cholesterol levels. Bornstein, who had been Trump's physician since 1980, later said that three Trump representatives, including Trump's longtime bodyguard Keith Schiller, had taken all of Trump's medical records from Bornstein's office in February 2017.

In January 2018, Trump was examined by White House physician Ronny Jackson, who stated that he was in excellent health and that his cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues, although his weight and cholesterol level were higher than recommended. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle, and LDL cholesterol level ought to have raised serious concerns about his cardiac health. In February 2019, Trump underwent another physical examination; White House physician Sean Conley said Trump was in "very good health overall", although Trump was now clinically obese, at 243 lb (110 kg) with a BMI of 30.4. Trump's 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he has a form of heart disease called coronary artery disease, which is common for white males at his age.

Numerous public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals have speculated that Donald Trump may have mental health challenges, ranging from narcissistic personality disorder to some form of dementia. In October 2017, Bandy X. Lee published The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, containing essays from 27 psychologists, psychiatrists, and mental health professionals on the "clear and present danger" that Trump's mental health poses to the "nation and individual well being". They argued that the President's issues affected the mental health of the United States population, and that he placed the country at grave risk of war because of his pathological traits. They defined Trump's behavior in terms of psychiatric diseases., such as narcissistic personality disorder.

Sources

- MrX 🖋 14:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

ETA: Added two full sources as requested by MelanieN and removed second WL of narcissistic personality disorder.- MrX 🖋 18:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. That looks like a reasonable proposal. --Tataral (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support with caveats - Yes, a very good bit of work, that. Nicely done, MrX. I'm thinking that last paragraph might need a little bit of fettling though. The double mention (and linking) of narcissistic personality disorder should probably be altered, but otherwise it's real close to being there. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, in agreement with the caveats suggested by MrX. Narcissistic personality disorder need only be mentioned once, so I would end the last sentence after "in terms of psychiatric diseases". I would include Trump's reply, repeatedly describing himself as a "stable genius" in January 2018,[17], July 2018,[18] and May 2019.[19] bd2412 T 17:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support with the minor modifications suggested above. I think that's a good and defensible addition. It leaves out almost all of the speculation and commentary and opinion about his mental health, and that's a GOOD thing. Several people pointed out at the deletion discussion, and the closer reiterated above, that any medical information might have to pass the strict requirements of MEDRS, not just our usual RS requirements. Virtually nothing in the to-be-merged article meets that criterion, so a brief summary like this is the best approach. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC) P.S. Could you please provide the full citations for references 22 and 23? I would like to propose a reworking of the last two sentences and I need to know what the sources say. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the citations. Give me a little time, those are very poor references. I want to see if I can find something better and more current for this material. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support MrX's proposed change. Looks good to me.--v/r - TP 19:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with MelanieN's version too.--v/r - TP 20:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Covers the main events from various sources. I'd cut down on the Bornstein story, though; it feels tabloid-like. We can do that after the merge. — JFG ^talk 20:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No doctor of any repute would render a judgement on something like Narcissistic personality disorder without performing numerous and likely confidential one-on-ones with the subject. Therefore, these are opinions from afar, and akin to when similar doctors tried to label GWBush as a Dry Drunk, it was 14 years ago during that argument on that article that such things were determined to be suitable for a mainline BLP, and I really don't think such speculation belongs on this website at all. Not only did Dry Drunk not withstand the test of time, this type of judgement from afar won't either. Dry Drunk isn't even linked to any page now related to GWBush...[20]...yet back then there was a big row over whether it woudl appear in the article even including a Rfc on that content.--MONGO (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't find the quotes right now, but somewhere it was stated that mental diagnosis nowadays relies much less on in-depth interviews with the patient and much more on observing the patient's functioning and behavior. That goes along with what I have read about changes in the approach to psychotherapy - that it has been moving away from deep psychoanalysis toward simply helping the person to improve their functioning, attitudes, and quality of life. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have spent some time researching this and getting additional and more current/authoritative sources. Most of the sources from the article we are merging were from 2017 or earlier. I also added Trump's own opinion of his mental health. So I have a revised proposal for the last paragraph:

Numerous public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals have speculated that Trump may have mental health challenges. The most common diagnosis cited is narcissistic personality disorder; some cite delusional disorder; some suggest some form of early dementia. In April 2017 more than 25,000 mental health professional signed a letter stating that in their professional judgement, "Donald Trump they believe Trump "manifests serious mental illness". that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States." In October 2017, psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee published The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, containing essays from 27 psychologists, psychiatrists, and mental health professionals on the danger they believe that Trump's mental health poses to the nation and to individual well being. They argued that the president's issues affected the mental health of the United States population, and that he placed the country at grave risk of war because of his mental traits. Trump has dismissed questions regarding his mental health, saying that he is a "very stable genius" and that he has "one of the great memories of all time".

Sources

Comments? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Thanks for pitching in.- MrX 🖋 20:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thanks for the more recent sources, but please remove the long mention of and quote from the "25,000 mental health professionals" letter; that's exactly the kind of armchair medical opinion tainted by political bias that unduly adorned the "Health" article. The Bandy Lee book is plenty enough for this line of reasoning. — JFG ^talk 20:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I do want to mention the letter so that the book isn't the only source we have for this sort of claim. If that full quote seems to be political we could shorten it to stating that in their professional judgement, "Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness." -- MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Fine with the trimmed quote, and I'd remove "in their professional judgment" too, because we just called them "mental health professionals". — JFG ^talk 21:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think there is a problem, here. The difference was that the Health of Donald Trump article captured every little bit of every little insignificant remark folks have made. This is one of the more significant pieces and it's inclusion isn't undue. One long paragraph is a significant improvement over an entire article of cruft.--v/r - TP 20:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That looks perfect to me as well. --Tataral (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Let's give it one more day for input before adding it. I take it everyone is OK with the rest of the modifications MrX suggested? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support MelanieN's rework of MrX's language. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - User:MelanieN para 1 and 2 are fine, 3 and 4 marginal (prefer trim or do without), and 5 definitely not. That one runs contrary to consensus #21, and regardless that somewhere else is being deleted, it’s still excluded here by prior consensus. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to the context of the proposed wording as being noncompliant with NPOV. Yes, there has been much speculation but that should not be the focus of his health - that's opinion. We are supposed to be fact-based when it comes to health issues and there is far too much weight being placed on speculation. We state what the examination by medical professionals have determined, and then we add a sentence or two about the wide-spread speculation by news sources and political opponents, which is factual and accurate and in the context it should be presented. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Assessments by (in this case, numerous and reputable) experts, based on publicly available, verifiable information and mainstream scholarship (e.g. in psychology), and published in reliable sources of good quality, including academic books and papers, are not "speculation" by "political opponents." There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that the private opinions of his private doctors are any more relevant than the opinions of experts cited by reliable sources; in fact the opinions of the doctors he himself has chosen to consult are mostly relevant as a reflection of his own views on his health (stable genius, most healthy person ever etc.) We can mention that, but it is less "third-party" and less reliable than the assessments of independent experts.
  • A person can choose to consult any doctor, including doctors who are his friends, who agree with him politically or otherwise, who hold fringe views, who are mediocre/obscure/not very reputable and so on. When a person solicits an opinion from a doctor to be used in a political argument (that he is a "stable genius") that doctor isn't particularly independent. Often doctors say pretty much what the patient wants them to say, within reasonable limits, as was in fact the case when Trump dictated a letter signed by his doctor during the campaign that claimed that Trump "will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" ([21], [22], [23]) I wonder if Trump's doctor had examined all the previous presidents, since he makes a direct claim about their (allegedly bad) health (claiming that Obama in his 40s was less healthy than a septuagenarian who never exercises and who is transported in a golf cart), or does this bogus requirement only apply when someone says something about Trump?
  • The assessments by independent experts, e.g. in books such as The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, are of higher quality than letters dictated by Trump to his personal doctors because, unlike his personal doctors, who can be just anybody with no scholarly reputations, the independent experts must compete in the marketplace of ideas based on their scholarly reputations and the quality of their arguments. When they get all this coverage in high quality RS such as NYT, NPR, BBC, The Guardian etc., it's because RS consider their assessments to be relevant and serious.
  • This text proposal is a very reasonable compromise that accomodates all the different views on this topic. --Tataral (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Tataral is correct. There is no plausible "noncompliant with NPOV" argument to be considered.- MrX 🖋 10:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Yup. Part of the problem here is the absence of data. Since Trump has only allowed sycophants to examine him, we must partly rely on armchair diagnoses to get a more complete picture. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
        • The only reasonable conclusion from an argument in favor of a medical diagnosis from a doctor that has never examined the subject over one that has is personal biases. There is another explanation to Tataral's scenario that wasn't consider: the media published these experts because the experts expressed an opinion that supported their narrative. The experts published their opinion because it helps their career to get noticed and they are unlikely to receive criticism to a very popular opinion. But at the end of the day, none of them have examined the subject. I would suggest that no one here attach themselves to Tataral because here, and at the AfD, they often ignored consensus and misrepresented consensus. They are coming here with strong biases. We should be able to have this conversation without that.--v/r - TP 22:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• • • • • • This talk page in general as well as the comment by myself that you replied to are concerned with the improvement of the article on Donald Trump. If you intend to spend your time here making comments like that one you made above you cannot expect that I, or anyone else, will dignify your comments with any further replies. --Tataral (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• I disagree based on the following plausible reasons:
  1. Amendment to close: A small amendment per a request on my talk page: Given that many of the concerns here are about the reliability of medical information and whether "armchair diagnoses" by people who have not personally examined Trump are actually reliable, as well as more general gossip/unencyclopedicity concerns, the editors who carry out the merger should probably consider a very selective merge that only includes the good material supported by top-notch sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 3:35 am, 14 June 2019, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−5) (reply)
  2. BLPN discussion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I will be adding his height to this paragraph. It was removed. starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say I Support MelanieN’s modified proposal. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. starship.paint (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Further edits - from the paragraph on Bornstein, the second line mentioning appendectomy and mentioning not mentioned bone spurs seems useless and disrupts the connection between line1 letter written and line3 letter said dictated. Better if it were removed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Para 5 excluded by Current Consensus

Mental health Rumors, speculations and slurs (apparently from deleted/discredited Health article) in proposal above already got fast-track inserted, ignoring User:Atsme and User:MONGO and not waiting.

I’ve deleted that as contrary to the standing consensus#21. I believe this topic - and specifically the ‘Dangerous case’ book and psych petition - were RFCed and categorically any such were excluded from RFC. You can have a separate article on the book, but not in this BLP.

If it reappears, I believe the consensus section guides removal and grants exception to 1RR so anyone can remove it repeatedly if need be - so please do not reinsert.

p.s Seems to me the Health article created in 2018 AFTER the 2017 consensus was a way to circumvent the BLP policy, WEIGHT and OFFTOPIC concerns, and this consensus #21. Just my opinion, but that seems also what happened for Consensus #22 - in 2018 the Veracity article is created. That a small snippet was taken elsewhere and got greatly expanded seems a POVFORK, verging on ATTACK page. May need another RFC on the fork/unfork proprieties there....

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

... the current consensus was established in August 2017. Has anything changed since then? starship.paint (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• July 2017 (background) American Psychoanalytic Association does not prohibit members from commenting on the mental health of public figures, but the American Psychiatric Association does
• September 2017 - "We will have no choice but to destroy North Korea"
• January 2018 - "I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"
• January 2018 - "throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart ... a very stable genius" (he establishes the allegations noteworthiness by denying them)
• March 2018 - "He doesn’t know me, but he would go down fast and hard, crying all the way. Don’t threaten people Joe!"
• July 2018 - "NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE."
• September 2018 - [24] UN press conference
• February 2019 speech - [25] the old man at the bar sounding off about the world’s ills ... wild detours ... random segues ... Trump sniffed frequently, and at times his speech sounded slurred
• March 2019 - [26] 67 lines from 2-hour CPAC speech
• May 2019 - "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran."

Feel free to provide more information. starship.paint (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The only consensus regarding any material on this topic is the consensus in this section in favour of the text proposal by MelanieN, following the earlier decision to merge the most central parts of Health of Donald Trump into this article. As there is consensus for the text proposal it should be restored. The health article is neither "deleted" nor "discredited". --Tataral (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the material should be restored per WP:CONSENSUS. All we have are a couple of editors ignoring a multitude of sources and substituting their own colorful opinions (armchair, slurs, gossip, speculation). As I read the above discussions, substantially more editors favor inclusion of the material than not, so good luck with that 1RR exception.- MrX 🖋 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

We could have another Rfc.--MONGO (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tataral That is false. As I clearly stated, the paragraph is directly contrary to Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus #21. The allegations, even the publications, were discussed and dismissed and felt recordable as categorically blocked in 2017. That a spawn article was done in 2018 which evades that seems the main event to me.

NOTTABLOID And while trying awfully hard to AGF, to the point this seems a willful avoidance of limits of POVFORK, either awareness that this is a BLP with higher standards and the potential to back flow material from less creditable articles into here. WP isn’t supposed to be a Tabloid, especially so in BLP articles. We may need a new RFC to explicitly make a caution about this.

NOTSLIMY Finally It’s OK to think leadership is a hyperbolic rambling speaker, normal for New Yorkers and real estate; or to think benign narcissist, maybe sort of normal among billionaires; or to think he and his ideas are a bit of a nutter to the extent common among Grumpy Old Guys. But it’s NOT ok to phrase that as a matter of medical concern. And to gather a litany of one-sided rumors and insinuations just won’t do. It needs discussion on principles not exhaustively listing each Google hit on one side. (Yes Starship, looking at you.). It’s by far more disreputable or nuttier to be asserting ‘mentally ill’, along with ‘collusion’, ‘like Hitler’, etcetera as a wording than any of the Trump behaviours being alluded to here. Please tune to BBC and the London Times a bit more and less wild speculation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

1) Even if there had been any such previous consensus from years ago, that wouldn't mean that a new consensus couldn't evolve. We now have such a new consensus that includes a specific formal decision that (the key parts of) Health of Donald Trump is to be merged into this article (the only way to appeal that is via Wikipedia:Deletion review), and in the implementation of that decision we have consensus for the text proposal by MelanieN that was implemented by MrX based on this discussion.

2) Health of Donald Trump, a quality article created by one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors that has been an established part of the Donald Trump article suite for a year, is not deleted and certainly not "discredited". Rather, the merge decision means that it remains an "article in good standing" and that editors believe the material should be covered here in some form. It is now part of this article, in other words. The article is still live and will remain so until the merge process has been completed, i.e. when we have agreed on a text that has been included in the Donald Trump article.

3) I opposed adding the false claim (itself worthy of being tagged as Template:Globalize/US) about a non-existent consensus to that list years ago, not only because there never was any previous consensus either for or against, but also because I anticipated that it would be abused as some sort of "weapon" against the forming of any future consensus (quite contrary to policy) regarding this issue. Your attempt to argue that the recent decision and discussion of this issue is irrelevant because of that list just proved that I was right. At the time everyone, including me, agreed that there was no consensus for including such material at that time and that the inclusion of such material would require future discussion and consensus (which has now happened), but no consensus for is not the same as a consensus against and cannot be used as an argument years later to shut down new decisions and discussions. Ostensibly, that was never the point of the list either. --Tataral (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tataral Well, that ceased falsely stating there is no consensus #21, but there is no “if there had been any such”. Please simply deal with it is obvious fact right there, plainly posted as guidance on this article and in TALK archives. So the discussion re importing may have been on a false and incomplete basis. Para 1 and 2 are fine, para 3 and 4 seem unnecessary verbosity meh, but para 5 was explicitly no-no and also seems contrary to current thread “Personality of Donald Trump”. Feel free to follow procedures and make an explicit case or RFC to change that if you wish and see what the outcome is in a week or two. Meanwhile please observe the stated items. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My thought: by consensus at the AFD page for Health of Donald Trump, we are supposed to merge that article into this. That article contains three short paragraphs about physical health. We pretty much reproduce those paragraphs in their entirety. It also contains ten paragraphs about his mental health. One of the complaints about the Health of DT article was that it overemphasized mental illness allegations, even including wisecracks from political opponents. We have respected that complaint by reproducing almost none of that material - just a one-paragraph summary of what was said by professionals in the field. IMO this proposal is responsive to both the requirement to include something on the subject (per the AfD), and the insistence that anything we say needs to be very carefully sourced and as neutral as we can make it. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So? The User:Jo-Jo Eumerus conclusion is to discuss here a “very selective merger” (noting concerns of BLP, copyvio, MEDRS, etc), with a final caution about “armchair diagnosis”. Jumping to insert the very material cautioned against with only brief local mention was not fully following that guidance. It was taking merge as if a license to insert the very thing cautioned against there and previously banned here which seems partly why that POVfork was later grown. At any rate, AfD discussion there is not a consensus here, it’s a directive to seek consensus here. I noted that local consensus #21 specifically excludes opinionating on mental health by people who have not examined him, and gives exemption from 1RR to delete it repeatedly, and simply executed the standing guidance. Excluding para 5 respects both article discussions to the maximum possible without contradictions.

I note that edits 1 thru 4 also did not get much discussion, so remain open to revert, but that seems not already explicitly excluded and subject to 1RR Limits. Jumping to replace all prior material here seemed a bit rushed or presumptive and not the intent of JoJo. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Stop trying to relitigate the AfD. I agree with Jo-Jo's closure and his additional statement. What we are proposing here actually is a "very selective merger" (reducing 10 paragraphs to one, can't get any more selective than that). If we are not able to use the opinions of medical professionals who have not examined him, then there is nothing to merge, because none have. And if that's the case, instead of "merge", the result of that AfD should have been "delete" or "redirect", because that would leave nothing to merge. All the physical health stuff is already in this article - mostly word-for-word - so what are we merging? I take the "merge" result of the AfD at face value; merge that the main points of the merged article should be reflected in the target article. That has to mean including at least some mention of mental health, which formed the bulk of the Health article and the only original material in it. Look, I used to be part of the consensus here not to say anything on the subject. I no longer am. To me that consensus has been overridden by 1) the long unchallenged existence of an article that went into the subject in depth, and 2) the AfD consensus to merge that article into this one. If they had meant for nothing about mental health to be merged, they would have said "redirect". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this. The "merge" outcome effectively requires this paragraph, or a version very similar, be included. Arguments against its inclusion should've been made during the AfD. This has already been decided. The material should be added to the article immediately, or we might as well just pretend the AfD process is meaningless. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN Respectfully, it is you who are not respecting the AfD nor respecting existing consensus in this article. The AfD decided a separate article was not merited. The armchair diagnosis and reportage of slurs was deprecated in that AfD. That little or perhaps nothing of that should arrive here seems the expectation, and the only specific is to go to discussion. No, “can’t get any more selective” obviously is disproven .... obviously one could get more selective than the entire replacement by 5 new paras, by simply cutting the one which is what happened and the topic in this sub thread. The armchair diagnosis is addressed by existing consensus #21 and there was no examination of that in AfD, nor detailed look that BLP has a higher standard, nor is any policy guidance I know of that says AfD somewhere else overrides local consensus. Respecting both consensus, cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN The edits here seemed in ignorance of consensus#21, then presumed a separate article Afd meant the consensus was altered to include one para as otherwise not much would merge to an unspecified content #36, although specifics like that were not discussed. That does not seem to satisfy the definition of consensus in WP:CONSENSUS. So... I think I’ll have to start a thread to elevate this back to attention. Ultimately, I think an explicit conversation in the article outweighs interpretations of a discussion in some article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Exercise

There should be a sentence about exercise, which is a key part of lifestyle, even more key since he is obese and was overweight. Possibly something like: Trump plays golf, but reportedly views exercise as a waste of finite energy. but there's actually more in the sources. I present a wide variety of different content below, but I'm sure I can find multiple sources for the same content (which you guys wouldn't want, as you want to trim the article) starship.paint (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• WaPo The Washington Post’s 2016 biography of the president, which noted that Trump mostly gave up athletics after college because he “believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted.”
• CNN 2019 "Nearly a dozen White House officials and sources close to Trump said they don't believe he's set foot in the fitness room in the White House residence, maintaining his view that exercise would be a waste of the energy he has always touted as one of his best attributes."
• NYT 2015 Trump said he was not following any special diet or exercise regimen for the campaign. "All my friends who work out all the time, they’re going for knee replacements, hip replacements — they’re a disaster" he said. He exerts himself fully by standing in front of an audience for an hour, as he just did. "That’s exercise."
• ABC 2018 White House Doctor Ronny Jackson: "Some people exercise, some people don’t. Some people just haven’t done that as part of their routine. And I would say that’s the category he falls in right now" and same source: But there’s one form of physical activity with which Trump is closely associated: golf.
• Reuters 2018 - Trump: "I get exercise. I mean I walk, I this, I that ... I run over to a building next door. I get more exercise than people think ... A lot of people go to the gym and they’ll work out for two hours and all. I’ve seen people ... then they get their new knees when they’re 55 years old and they get their new hips and they do all those things. I don’t have those problems" He gets exercise by playing golf, he said, even though he typically rides around the course in a golf cart. Walking would leave him on the course longer than he prefers, he said. "I don’t want to spend the time." starship.paint (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that that wasn't mentioned in the article we are merging. Yet another way in which it was a lousy article. I suggest it could go in the same paragraph where people point out that his diet, weight, and lifestyle are suboptimal. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN. Here's some options I'm proposing: starship.paint (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Option A: Trump plays golf, but reportedly views exercise as a waste of finite energy.
• Option B: Although Trump plays golf, White House Doctor Ronny Jackson said in 2018 that Trump does not have a exercise routine. Trump has said that people who regularly exercise would require orthopedic surgery at his age.
• Option C: White House Doctor Ronny Jackson said in 2018 that Trump does not have a exercise routine. Trump does play golf, and to save time, favors using a golf cart over walking around the course.
• Option D: Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.
• Option E: Trump plays golf but otherwise does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.
• Option F: Trump plays golf and favors using a golf cart over walking around the course. He otherwise does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.

I think we should keep it brief but informative. How about a combination of A and B: "Trump plays golf but otherwise does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy." -- MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• I kind of favor C D or E. Trump's view about orthopedic surgery or "finite energy" are trivial and meaningless. Golf is not really exercise if your ride around in a golf cart, so I wouldn't object leaving it off entirely.- MrX 🖋 17:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've added and support "Option D" on the basis that playing golf with a golf cart isn't exercise, and thus can be completely excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, at this rate, there will be an RfC to rank options (if something isn't supported here, we can leave it out as an option). Added MelanieN's sentence as option E, added a slightly expanded version Option F which I prefer. starship.paint (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@MrX, MelanieN, and Scjessey: - I found a WaPo source quoting Trump's tweet that golf is his primary form of exercise. It also says Trump is renowned for his use of a golf cart — to the point that he has actually angered some other golfers by driving his cart onto the green at his own clubs. Shall we just go with: According to Trump, his "primary form of exercise" is golf; he is known for travelling in a golf cart between holes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship.paint (talk • contribs)

I still favor option D, with brevity being my primary goal here. Why even mention the golf thing if he isn't actually exercising? (Unless you include "exercising" his right to sink millions of taxpayer dollars into his own golf courses.) -- Scjessey (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ugh means that my ping didn't go though. Well swinging a club is kind of exercise, just extremely little. @MrX and MelanieN: starship.paint (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

It's still D, E, and possibly A in that order, for me. We should keep it brief and objective, rather than writing about Trump's reflections on his own lack of exercise. - MrX 🖋 11:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I also prefer D, followed by E, followed by A. No need for a lot of detail about how he plays golf. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Disease or disorder?

I concur with this edit at the Health article from which this material came. The source we're citing doesn't appear to support the words "psychiatric diseases". Is it too late to propose this tweak to what MrX added to the article today? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"Disorder" is the correct terminology. Surely this is a no-brainer? (Vague pun intended.) -- Scjessey (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection.- MrX 🖋 18:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Mmm. That edit comment fails WP:V - just follow the cite. An editors personal opinions about whether the term is outdated does not count as a basis. The wording in question seems to come from the Washington Post line:

“The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” features more than two dozen essays breaking down the president’s perceived traits, which the contributors find consistent with symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathy and other maladies.

The later part of the Post article says they're doing something APA says is unethical, that authors say he's like Hitler and with needless vulgarity that absolute tyranny is Trump's wet dream is not looking like the source for this line.

Both the WP line "They defined Trump's behavior in terms of psychiatric diseases, such as narcissistic personality disorder." and using "mental disorder" seem off. It was not saying 'defining' of behaviour nor 'in terms of' nor a single category of either type. Wording is more directly "They find his perceived traits consistent with symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathy and other maladies." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Which version?

MrX, I see that you added your original version of the last paragraph to the article. In your edit summary you said Adding merged content from Health of Donald Trump per consensus at talk: Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle proposal (Support: MrX, Tataral, Scjessey, bd2412, MelanieN, TParis, JFG; Oppose: MONGO, Atsme) Substantially more participation in this discussion than in both previous discussions documented in consensus #21. This it the new consensus, unless MelanieN's modifications to paragraph 5 get a little more support. Actually I thought we already had consensus for my modified version. After I posted it there were approving comments from you yourself as well as JFG, TParis, Tataral, Scjessey - that’s five, plus me - as well as opposition from Markbassett and Atsme. The later version has more and more current sources, and it does not contain the sentence about “psychiatric diseases” that was objected to, and it does contain Trump’s rebuttal. Virtually everyone, with the except of bd2412, that had commented on the original version later said they liked the modified version. So I’m not sure how you reached the conclusion that the original version, rather than the modified version, had consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN on this. — JFG ^talk 22:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: OK, that make's sense. I got lost in the subsequent discussion following your proposal, so I wasn't certain about the consensus. Someone should go ahead and add your version and update the list of consensuses.- MrX 🖋 23:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

What is our current consensus?

The consensus list entry is very general and I don't think it needs updating. But it would be useful for the future to clarify exactly what the new consensus language is, somewhere in this discussion. I could do a 99%-uninvolved close if desired, provided I don't have to analyze and summarize arguments on this one. Just pointing to the consensus language. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My reading of the whole discussion was that there was consensus for MelanieN's version, and that those who had an opinion at all about her proposed changes had weighed in the section about the changes. --Tataral (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really, it’s been Helter Skelter. Starship got a jump on the AfD merge with retitling and edits 10 June, MrX did a talk 14 June to edit 15 June, and then a MelanieN revision talk late 14 June to edit circa 16 June and numerous tweaks since by several editors - last being a fair sized one by MelanieN just a bit ago, whups no Mandruss just got in there... There really wasn’t a lot of prior open discussion to form a consensus about what to include or not just jumps into edits hence there’s been jumps into after-edits and still discussing content and wording. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we need to remove the list item. If nothing else, it has been superseded by the current consensus in this section, that is concerned with the implementation of the AfD result. The fact that Markbassett is trying to use it to "relitigate the AfD" (as MelanieN noted) is a good illustration of why it needs to go, because it directly contradicts content that there is consensus to include. What we do have consensus for is to keep material on this issue fairly short and based on only the best sources, which is also in line with the AfD decision. I wouldn't oppose a new list item to that effect. --Tataral (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday, #21 was marked superseded and #36 was added. Sorry, I assumed all interested parties would notice the changes, an unwise assumption considering list changes don't appear in this page's history (the list is transcluded). ―Mandruss ☎ 11:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Our new “current consensus #36” says 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. I have a slight disagreement with that wording. I agree with keeping it to one paragraph. But I would absolutely oppose reporting any views expressed by “public figures” (the Health article actually quoted Jeb Bush, as if he was some kind of authority on Bush’s mental health rather than a political rival; would we quote Donald Trump to prove that Hillary Clinton is a criminal?). And I would mostly oppose comments from individual commenters - with a possible exception for a column by a mental health professional, but it’s better the way we have it where we quote the combined analyses of multiple professionals. I think it should say Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by mental health professionals, even if they have not personally examined him. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that would be accurate because the paragraph begins "Numerous public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals have speculated that Trump may have mental health challenges." The version I wrote acknowledges that public figures and media sources have also speculated about Trump's mental health.- MrX 🖋 17:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we do report that they speculate about it. I just don't want our consensus to suggest that we are going to quote any of their speculation - I think we should make it clear that we will not be "describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by" public figures and media sources. Obviously I'm open to other opinions, if people think that is too fine a distinction to make. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't quote specific public figures in that section, because there are better qualified, more relevant and more independent sources, but we can mention briefly that the issue has been the subject of much commentary (like we currently do) without going into further detail about the opinions of individual public figures. I also agree that we should focus on analyses of multiple professionals when possible; the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, that is a joint project of 27 reputable experts, is a good example of that. --Tataral (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I assumed that, since the added language is too much to include in the list entry (or is it?), we would agree on the precise language in this discussion and further discussion and agreement would be required to change that paragraph in any way. Is that unworkable? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I always assumed that any future change to the wording of this highly sensitive and much debated paragraph agreed to here would require future discussion and consensus anyway. Perhaps we can just link to the specific wording (i.e. the version proposed by MelanieN)? --Tataral (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I alluded to this yesterday, here. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't favor locking in a specific wording. We need to be able to make at least minor corrections. And things can change, new issues can arise. And after all, most of the people who approved of the revised version also previously approved of the original version, so both can be said to have met consensus. I think we should state the consensus on the TYPE of thing we can say in this paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely wish you good luck and godspeed in that endeavor. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I made a proposal above. I'll repeat it: Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by mental health professionals, even if they have not personally examined him. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That works for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Whoa, that was easy! Are your wishes for good luck and godspeed always this successful? 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I doubt that simply assuming superseded is valid, or interpreting AFD in the way done here, as it does not form a consensus by WP:CONSENSUS talking of the item in question. The prior Afd and edit were acting in ignorance of consensus #21, or at least never mentioned it. The only coming close was remarks against armchair diagnosis, which seems contrary to the course now being taken. Perhaps a new thread on this is needed to have the topic detailed out, to cleanly do procedural and content discussion as to what language of consensus should be - including whether the consensus #21 should have stayed untouched. At the very least, it really should be phrasing somebody statement of guidance concepts, not a vague directive ‘insert one para’. Markbassett (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, not seeing any movement for a consensus discussion, or re wording for guidance, I think it's time to start a thread about it and that seems a cleaner procedural approach anyway as this thread is a bit overlong and tangled - the edits began before AfD was done, and first the edits were done then the rules were changed to allow it seems a bit in need of reconsideration. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Merged

OK, I added the second version and completed the merge. We could still have a discussion about how the new consensus should read. I'd like it to me a little more limited as to what kind of information is allowed. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Since we are including contentious speculation about Trump's mental health by health professionals who have violated their own professional ethics, we should at least state the circumstances of their armchair diagnosis in the paragraph we're adding. The AfD closer clarified: A small amendment per a request on my talk page: Given that many of the concerns here are about the reliability of medical information and whether "armchair diagnoses" by people who have not personally examined Trump are actually reliable, as well as more general gossip/unencyclopedicity concerns, the editors who carry out the merger should probably consider a very selective merge that only includes the good material supported by top-notch sources. I don't see where local consensus was reached to include what we have now. I believe we should stick closer to the consensus reached by the wider community. Another consideration is what was said when I first took the issue to BLPN, the statement by GreenMeansGo when he opened the AfD, and the ongoing discussion at VP (policy). There is also the suggestion by BD2412 regarding a suggestion by TParis as follows: With as broad a body of reporting as there has been, we shouldn't proceed as if the claims don't exist, but I am amenable to the compromise proposal TParis has made above to convert this into an article specifically on the phenomenon of a substantial number of mental health professionals making claims about a specific patient that they have not examined, and the response of the APA and other governing bodies to that practice. The way the paragraph reads now makes the armchair opinions appear to be legitimate diagnoses, and that needs to be changed. For example, Trump's critics", media pundits, and several mental health professionals, who never examined Trump, gave their opinions in violation of the Goldwater Rule, suggesting disorders such as narcissism,[99] delusional disorder,[100][101] or early dementia.[102][103] . That's all the weight it needs, anything more is UNDUE. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That wording makes it sounds like the critics and media pundits were in violation of the Goldwater Rule, which only applies to mental health professionals. If we are going to bring up the rule, it should be specified that the mental health professionals who made the statements have never personally examined Trump, and are in violation of the Goldwater Rule. Some of those who are merely critics (i.e. not mental health professionals) who have commented on Trump's mental health are people who have met him in person. bd2412 T 19:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with bd2412 that the wording there needs more clarification. Not necessarily even more words, but definitely at least a clearer structure. Other than that, I'm just not totally sure why we're really considering the opinions of nondescript "critics and media pundits". I struggle to imagine where we would take such opinions seriously on any other medical topic. GMG^talk 20:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I would have no problem removing reference to anyone who is not a medical mental health professional. The opinions of others is relevant to the public perception of Trump, but not relevant to his actual health. bd2412 T 20:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Psychologists are not medical professionals, but are qualified experts on this topic nevertheless. The book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump is authored by "psychiatrists [i.e. medical professionals], psychologists, and other mental health professionals." --Tataral (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Corrected. bd2412 T 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we are pretty much in agreement that we do not want to actually cite opinions from anyone who is not a mental health professional, although we do mention in the opening sentence that those other groups have also made comments. As for the "violation of the Goldwater rule," we could possibly handle that by adding a footnote, along these lines: Some of these mental health professionals belong to organizations that have a Goldwater rule. which says their members should not render an opinion about the status of a person they have not examined. Spokespeople for authors of the public statements responded that they are also bound by the principle of Duty to warn when someone appears to be dangerous. Do people think something like this would be necessary or helpful? (I'm not recommending it myself one way or the other, just raising a possibility.) -- MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree in principle. I think footnotes are a good solution when we want to be entirely accurate but want to avoid getting too deep in the weeds for general consumption. I think they should be used more. Here's my copy edit: Some of these mental health professionals belong to organizations that endorse the Goldwater rule, which says their members should not render an opinion about the mental health of a person they have not examined. Authors of the public statements responded that they are also bound by the principle of duty to warn when someone appears to be dangerous. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Thanks, that's an improvement. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

And it would need a citation or two, for V. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Added [27] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a note for Atsme and BD2412: the Goldwater Rule isn't mandatory for all mental health professionals. For example, the American Psychoanalytic Association says its members don't have to follow the Goldwater Rule. [28] starship.paint (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Depending of course on how broadly you want to use the term "mental health professional". GMG^talk 14:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

mmm. Not many areas of the field Mental health professional could be included per ethical bans, so not sure that the phrase means much if anything WP:MEDHRS. In WP:MEDHRS terms, would seem best fit by those licensed by the state in a relevant profession. The Washington Post cite re’Dangerous’ book mentions this is unethical by the Goldwater rule of the American Psychiatric Association, as does the Forbes cite re the Change.org online petition. Although the American Psychoanalytic Association ‘prefers’ that it’s members not offer opinions on someone they have not examined, it does not have a Goldwater rule. The American Medical Association does have an ethical rule against it, which would bear bar neurological practitioners. I think the American Psychological Association are not mentioned as having a rule - but that includes educators, consultants, students, and social workers not qualified as health professionals. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - source for your claim on American Medical Association? starship.paint (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint The Goldwater rule mentions it, cite is here, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) Report 2-I-17 Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The Goldwater "rule" (which isn't really a "rule") is just a recommendation of what is essentially a private association that consists of psychiatrists in the US. We shouldn't forget that numerous experts from other countries have voiced an opinion regarding this issue too. Why should they care about any Goldwater rule that doesn't apply to them? The debate is global. Europeans tend to view things like this in the US quite sceptically. The entire US legal system is mostly viewed as deeply flawed and politicized by Europeans too – much like we view the Chinese legal system, in fact. The starting point of any discussion cannot be that the entire world recognises any such rule just because a group of Americans have proclaimed its existence. --Tataral (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Add back the "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably" tag

This article is definitely too long, and many people agree. Regardless of that, Space4Time3Continuum2x removed it from the page without first looking for consensus. I believe it should be added back until the matter is decided upon. Bob Roberts 06:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I've restored it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it :) Bob Roberts 07:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It serves no practical purpose since this one of the most active talk pages on Wikipedia. Many of us have been routinely trimming the article to keep it manageable. - MrX 🖋 15:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong. It serves a purpose to bring new editors to the talk page who do not already regularly view it. Most people agreed to keep the tag, including Onetwothreeip and me. Don't just revert people's edits because you think you're right. The majority of editors agrede to have the tag, and the article still hasn't even been shortened. Bob Roberts 20:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with MrX. If those tags have any utility at all, it's for when the issue needs more attention than it has been receiving (lately). ―Mandruss ☎ 16:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not only a matter of attention but also about priority. Potential editors of this article are rightly reminded of the article's length, and that should be a consideration of all editors. It's not just about bringing people to the talk page, although that's also something good coming about from tags like these. We also don't want to give the impression that the length issues are fixed, and we don't want readers of Wikipedia to think that the extreme length of this article is normal. Since this article is very long despite many people having this on their watchlist, we most certainly could use more people to contribute to discussion and to fixing the issues. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Thank you for participating in the discussion. Now perhaps we can agree that the reasonable and orderly thing to do is restore the article to status quo ante until there is a consensus to change it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The tag serves no useful purpose. Talk page discussion is a much better venue for effecting change. The article isn't really very long, when one considers that 50% is references. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's an argument to be made against the tag generally, not its application on this article. One of the reasons we use this tag is that it brings editors to discussions on the talk page, it's not the tag itself that makes changes. Of course this article is very long though, including too many references especially if they are half of the article. This article is currently the 8th largest on Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well some article has to be the longest, and some article has to be the 8th largest. Shortening this one only makes a different one the 8th largest, and Trump will be unhappy if his article isn't the largest of them all. Regrettably, he really is that notable. Previous presidents haven't had their fingers in as many pies as he has. That makes for many long articles about him.

The best way to shorten this one is to make sure that the sections which are summaries of sub-articles are concise and brief. Any very long sections which are not summaries could be spun off per WP:SPINOFF. That too would shorten it, but shortness is not a virtue. It's time for you to stop aiming at all the long articles and trying to shorten them. Just start improving article content and actually building them, which often has the effect of making them longer. LOL! -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with the size of articles, whether that be the ideal size or the actual size. The argument that some article has to be the largest is only a sensible when we have a situation where there are essentially no more articles that are not too long, which I don't think anybody would claim about on Wikipedia. There are at least thousands of articles that would be rightly considered too long, and many more that need improvement for many other reasons, but editors choose for themselves which articles to prioritise improving.

The subject's notability does however have a bearing on the amount of articles about the subject, and that should certainly be the case here. Generally we should have the same kinds of sub-articles for Donald Trump as we've had for Barack Obama, which is why I've started my attention on splitting off his early/personal life. My main concern is not in deleting content, but making sure that content is in the right places and not in the wrong places. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: You've done it again.[29] I remind you that the article is under discretionary sanctions and advise you not to add that tag again without consensus to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the status quo is for the tag to remain. Nobody here is saying this is not a very large article. Those issues haven't been fully addressed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the only support you have in this discussion is from a low-time teenaged editor who has since changed his username and been topic-banned from AP2. In opposition are three experienced editors. That's what's clear to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the reasons I've raised for the tag remaining. I wasn't talking about support or opposition, I was talking about what constitutes status quo. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this the first add? If so, it was first disputed roughly 52 hours later, here. Fifty-two hours is hardly long enough to establish status quo ante, since even regular editors often go longer between activity at the article. Subsequent time in the article doesn't count toward SQA since those reverts were illegitimate, and it still wouldn't constitute SQA if it did. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• 2,629 editors have this page on their watch lists. I don't see the reason for a tag looking for more editors. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Make that four experienced editors in opposition. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we just dispel the notion that the tag is to be there to get more editors to the talk page? It's completely a strawman argument. I'm not saying it's a matter of how long the tag was there, it's a matter of how long the article has been the extreme size that it's been. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's the major purpose of tags. O3000 (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

As has been said multiple times, we have multiple initiatives already underway to significantly reduce article size. Give them a chance to work. This is not an issue that is being neglected. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not really the major purpose of tags in general, but it's often a purpose. The tag should remain to tell those who seek to edit the article, regardless of their level of experience or their involvement in the talk pages. I think we would prefer that editors are aware that the article is large when they make edits, either in considering how they add to content or in encouraging editors to resolve these issues. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. You have articulated your position well, and you still lack a consensus. That's how it works, as frustrating as it may be. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I'm frustrated over this, but I'm more confused. Can someone explain the argument that the tag shouldn't be there because people already know it? I can see why that would mean someone wouldn't add it, but not why someone would remove it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you're assuming there is a "correct" answer here. As with most Wikipedia issues, there are only viewpoints. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're telling me this, it has nothing to do with what I said. You're not obligated to respond to me at all but clearly that doesn't answer my query. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well the last time editors ceased responding to you, you took that as a green light to add the tag again. I was trying to avoid a recurrence of that. But no, I frankly don't feel the need to explain myself further. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

What I took as a "green light" was that you said you supported returning to the status quo while discussion was ongoing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

My mistake then, I assumed an editor with your experience knew that 52 hours does not mean status quo ante in any circumstances. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said, it was nothing to do with the tag being there for any amount of time like most content disputes would be. It was the amount of time that the article's size was an issue, the tag is just a formality of that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Add the tag again and see how far that argument gets you at AE. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

All the regular editors of this article are aware that it is too long, and most are usefully engaged in trying to alleviate the problem. The tag is unnecessary; moreover, it is adding another transcluded template and exacerbating the problem (albeit insignificantly). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

College records

Onetwothreeip removed [30] some content from Early life and education. The content was regarding that in the 2010s, Trump's college records were moved and sealed, and Trump's lawyer threatened his colleges with civil and criminal action if Trump's college records were revealed. Where should the content go, if not Early life and education? starship.paint (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Right here in the false statements section. 2600:1702:2340:9470:F5D1:4306:F192:C3D7 (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not only a matter of false statements, it's a matter of covering them up. I've kept that content on my user page if anybody wants to do anything with it, and I would appreciate if they informed me when they do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: - so where can it go that is a better place than Early life and education, in your opinion? starship.paint (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint I would say they relate more to his post-2010 political activity, first where he wanted Barack Obama to publish academic records, and then later when they were a point of contention for the 2016 election. His actual academic results, to the extent that they are at all relevant, would belong in the sections related to his early life and education. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip - well okay, so that's where I will insert them. starship.paint (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Do we have an indication that Wharton was threatened, or that Cohen claims this? How it was written seems to be only about Fordham and the Military Academy. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Cohen said Trump directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores ... I’m giving the Committee today copies of a letter I sent at Mr. Trump’s direction threatening these schools Cohen didn't explicitly say Wharton was threatened, but said colleges in the plural, and we do know Trump attended two colleges. Anyway, we don't say Wharton, we say colleges just how Cohen said. starship.paint (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's fair, although the military academy he attended is also described as a college. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't elevate Cohen's statements here; there's too much personal bias and conflict of interest for his allegations about Trump to be taken at face value. — JFG ^talk 08:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you think is the conflict of interest here? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Cohen initially pledged total allegiance to Trump, then when he was under legal scrutiny (including for stuff unrelated to Trump), he started placing blame on him. Whenever Trump's and Cohen's versions of any event differ, they both put their own spin on it, and we don't know who says the truth, but Cohen is in jail in part for lying to investigators, so it's hard to take his word for anything unless independently verified. — JFG ^talk 08:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It was verified by whom the letter was sent to. Anybody that claims anything negative about Donald Trump is just as susceptible to being labelled as personally biased and that Trump would have a different version. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: - did you miss the part where Cohen actually produced a letter [31], and that the Military Academy and Fordham both separately confirmed receiving such letters? starship.paint (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. We can rely on the letter, not on Cohen's spin about it (neither on Trump's, obviously). From its timestamp on May 5, 2015, this looks like part of preparations for Trump's campaign announcement, trying to pre-empt requests for disclosure of personal records. I reckon many presidential candidates do that, as well as some presidents. In other words, not exceptional and WP:UNDUE, unless a preponderance of RS call this action exceptional. — JFG ^talk 10:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this is all pretty trivial anyway, but what do you mean about other candidates doing this? It's not even necessary at all to do, since institutions can't publish this kind of information without their permission anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Seems wrong section, offtopic. The section Early life and education should be facts of early life and education, not involve allegations about 60 years later. More in the topic of beginning the Presidency. Could also just drop it as trivia not significant enough for BLP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

JFG - I'm stopping at 10 articles. Hill, PBS, WaPo, Australian ABC, Reuters, AP, NYT, Bloomberg, LA Times, Fox News. starship.paint (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Corporate takeover activities

Apparently this topic was archived, but are we not going to make any mention under section Side Ventures that Trump was engaged in corporate takeover activities in the 1980s? Maybe some don't like how his activities were characterized ("corporate raider") but shouldn't we at least note that he was doing it? soibangla (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do. 2600:1702:2340:9470:257F:BC74:33A6:70FE (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add any. The Archive 97 discussion didn’t have much content or interest from editors, but it seems little trading activity happened and the LABEL does not seem widely supported. The article already is too big and jammed, this seems trivial enough to skip. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do. For those who missed it, the archived discussion was triggered by a major story last month in which the New York Times used Trump's tax history to analyze his business career. Despite Markbassett's assertion, the majority of editors who participated in the discussion supported adding content. This is a significant part of Trump's career and deserves at least a few sentences, even if there's no hint of wrongdoing. There are lots and lots of reliable sources on this subject, going back decades. Here are just a few I found from pre-2019 with hardly any digging: [32][33][34]. By my understanding Trump didn't do much taking over, so I wouldn't characterize this as "corporate takeover activities." R2 (bleep) 21:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope, most in the discussion did NOT want the proposed edit here - count five against were MONGO, TFD, JFG, O3000, Markbassett. Four supported adding the edit here- soibangla, MrX, R2, and Space4Time. (At least 3 of the Nos were basically poor editing and/or wrong article.) Also, the recent NYT piece that was stuck in immediately seems the only one with this interpretation on 30+ years ago events. The Barrett book sounds like the closest and BESTSOURCE for this, but that's not much and it seems to not have the NYT take on things. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I've been trying to write something since that last discussion over a month ago but ran into difficulties trying to keep it short (and the moral indignation in check) because it's such a convoluted mess involving stock buying and "parking" through Bear Stearns and using insider information from a Drexel analyst. I'll keep at it & will add if someone else gets to it first. As for the subsubheading, how about the term CNN uses, activist investor? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Defeating x numbers of Republican candidates

@JFG: Can you show us where it's considered notable that Donald Trump was nominated for the Republican Party ahead of however many other candidates there were? From what I gather, this has mostly been a self-promotional claim by Trump. What is probably more notable is that he won the nomination despite broad scepticism that he would be successful, but not that there happened to be as many no-chance candidates as there were. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The article about the 2016 Republican primaries makes it clear that the number of candidates was exceptional, and refers to many sources stating that Trump's topping the polls was at best unexpected, at worst unconscionable. — JFG ^talk 05:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the exceptional nature of Trump's nomination, but that has little to do with the amount of candidates that were in the primary election. At best this seems to be a WP:SYNTH that there was an extraordinary number of candidates, and that his nomination was extraordinary. The election for next year's Democratic Party nomination is even more crowded but we're unlikely to see any relevance of how many candidates the nominee will have "beaten", unless they are as self-promotional of that as Trump was. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I would readily agree with you if Trump was the only one to note how many people he defeated. However, lots of independent WP:RS have noted this fact, analyzed it at length and attempted to understand it, from both sides of the political bias spectrum, therefore it's a WP:DUE remark. We'll see in about a year whether the 2020 Democratic nominee crows about beating 24 others. Meanwhile, WP:WAX. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

JFG That goes back to my original question. What are these non-Trump sources that regard this as notable? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's a few reputable sources describing the unexpected wins of Trump against a wide field of more-experienced, more-reasonable, or better-supported primary opponents:[35][36][37][38][39] I'm sure you can find dozens more. — JFG ^talk 10:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Except maybe the first one, these sources just say there were sixteen other candidates, not that he personally defeated them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump didn't "defeat" anyone at all. The electorate whittled down the number of candidates in the primaries, and then chose Trump over Clinton. The narrative that Trump "defeated" opponents is just the way Trump likes to portray it. That Trump prevailed over a large field in the primaries is notable enough for 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries, but I don't think it needs to be in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's common language in politics. Barack Obama uses the word "defeat" twice in election contexts. The fact that the word suits Trump just fine is beside the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump quite ostentatiously defeated the other candidates. Jeb Bush was torn to shreds, Rubio was punched down, even Carson was savagely attacked. All the never-Trumpers kept kicking him, he kicked back harder, and he won. Did any primary contest in living memory display such unabashed aggressivity? Look at the vocabulary used in sources covering this race: bellicose rhetoric is all over the place, and sustained over a full year. There was talk of Trump performing a hostile takeover of the Republican party. Definitely "defeated" is the most appropriate portrayal of what unfolded. — JFG ^talk 22:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This is really the wrong way of looking at the election. Even if we accept that he "defeated" people like Bush and Rubio, we can't extend that to all the other candidates. It's also highly misleading as the way this is portrayed makes it seem like it would be harder to win in a primary election with so many candidates, but it's actually easier to win when the opposition is divided. Even with Barack Obama, we might say that he defeated John McCain or Mitt Romney, but we wouldn't be saying he defeated Gary Johnson, Jill Stein or Virgil Goode.

If editors here want to express that Trump was aggressive in attacking primary opponents, there are much better ways of doing this than essentially refactoring Trump's own narrative. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable courses continually mention that Trump prevailed over 16 or 17 (depending on how it is counted) other candidates. If we accept Onetwothreeip's view that it is easier to defeat many candidates than few, then it's still significant. But sources referred to them not as the seven dwarfs (the term used for Bill Clinton's 1992 opponents), but as the best qualified Republican group ever. And of course he then went on to beat the most qualified person ever to run for president. TFD (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That's right. We can mention how many candidates there were (although I don't think that's relevant enough to be on this article), and we can mention his combative style during the primary election, but we shouldn't put those together. Yet another reason to avoid this is because we're not certain how many other candidates we are counting. The supposed level of qualification that these primary candidates have is yet another separate issue and we certainly don't have any indication that this made it harder for Trump to win. I have no idea on what basis you're claiming Hillary Clinton to be "the most qualified person ever" but I don't think that's relevant either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a thought, but Onetwothreeip and I have both used "prevailed" instead of "defeated", and I think it is a more encyclopedic word that better describes the overall primary process. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, Clinton's qualifications were a major campaign issue, as was Trump's lack of qualifications. Barack Obama, who was then serving as U.S. president, said, "There has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill, nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America." Scjessey, I prefer the term prevailed because it better describes what happened. TFD (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That may very well be Barack Obama's opinion, but it's only an opinion. There are very few legally required qualifications. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It was the expressed opinion of the Clinton campaign. If you dig through your emails you should find the memo. It was also commented on in numerous sources. The fact that it happened to be false is irrelevant. What is relevant is the coverage it got. TFD (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Onetwothreeip that the exact number of primary candidates is a bit of a distraction and isn't sufficiently important to include in Trump's lead. I would suggest changing this to say that Trump defeated "a large number" of opponents. I have no strong feelings about "defeated" versus "prevailed over" and would support either one. R2 (bleep) 17:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Given this discussion, something like "prevailed over a large number of candidates" seems the most sensible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to "prevailed over" rather than "defeated", although it dilutes the harshly competitive and adversarial nature of that race: it was basically "everybody against Trump". To the other suggestion, I fail to see how "a large number" is better than "sixteen". — JFG ^talk 05:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Because it wasn't everybody against Trump. Candidates were attacking each other and Trump did not attack all the other candidates. We're avoiding using a single number because we're not sure what that single number would be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. "Prevailed over a crowded field" would be a good way of saying it in a vague enough way to accommodate this fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like "prevailed over a crowded field" would satisfy everyone's concerns. Any objections? R2 (bleep) 16:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No: it's unnecessarily imprecise, and next thing we know somebody will ask "why are we being weasely in that sentence?" I'd be fine with "prevailed over sixteen candidates", although "defeated sixteen candidates" is yet more concise. I fail to understand the sudden opposition to the usual "defeated" wording, which has been in the article for years, and is also used in many articles about politicians defeating their opponents at the polls. — JFG ^talk 10:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It's necessarily imprecise, actually. Many of Trump's primary opponents defeated themselves, so it would be incorrect to say Trump defeated them all. Moreover, the fact that it was a big field (hence "crowded") is more important than the specific number, as it gives the reader unfamiliar with American politics a sense of what happened. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS

MelanieN - your correction missed the mark per MOS:JOBTITLES. In that particular case (no pun intended) it was not a generic reference, it was a reference to Trump: When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN was correct. "The president" is never capitalized. That's a generic reference, even if it was talking about a specific president. (Notice I didn't write "specific President.") R2 (bleep) 16:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of this, because I recently lost a fight to capitalize First Lady in generic usage. We now say first lady. Yeah, I hate it too, but that's what Reliable Sources now mandate, and that's what MOS calls for. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope - unless MOS:JOBTITLES is changed so that all references are considered generic - While running for president, - and no longer follow direct references - the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II - then we are obligated to stick with MOS. When the sentence states: They argued that the president's [referring to Trump] issues affect the mental health of the United States population - we are not referring generically to the health of all presidents, we are referring to Trump which is upper case the same as it is with the Queen. See the example I included, and maybe re-read MOS. You are misinterpreting generic with direct reference. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I’m not going to defend this usage and I don’t actually like it. But it does appear to be the way Wikipedia is now styling this word. I argued against this kind of rule at Talk:First Lady of the United States#Changing First Lady to lowercase and Talk:Hillary Clinton#Capitalization of "first lady”. But I lost the argument; it was won by several people who seem very familiar with the MOS rules. Among other things, they said that the word isn’t capitalized when preceded by “the”. And they cited authoritative sources. I generally honor RS over MOS, but RS agree with them: [40] [41] [42] If you want to argue this, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. But I do agree that this wording should make it clearer that they are talking about Trump himself, and I will reword it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that we're not "obligated" to follow the MOS, regardless of what it says. By its own intro, it's a guideline intended to help editors write articles consistently. We're not a bureaucracy. If articles are being written inconsistently with the MOS, and consensus supports how those articles are being written, then editing in accordance with the MOS actually undercuts its purpose (as odd as that might sound). The solution, for those who are bothered by differences between the MOS and common practice, is to change the MOS to reflect common practice. R2 (bleep) 20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That's frankly absurd. If MOS followed common practice on this, it would read: "Do whatever seems right to you, and have a nice day." The MOS discussions have closely examined the best available language authorities (which is generally not done at article level) and discussed this at sufficient length, and the product of that effort is the current guideline. There is absolutely no reason why the capitalization criteria for the word "president" should vary between articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of your speculation of what it means, the MOS is still a guideline, not a policy. It is to be applied with common sense, and we are not required to follow it. R2 (bleep) 21:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

We can reasonably be expected to follow it except where one can make a somewhat strong case to deviate. "I disagree with that" is not a somewhat strong case to deviate. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 2 (which I clearly specified for editors' convenience in the edit summary of the edit in which I capitalized that word:) "[They are capitalized only in the following cases:] When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II." Why are we having this discussion? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

How come when you say it, they listen, but when I say the same thing, I get in trouble for bludgeoning... ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Who says anybody's listening? This problem will continue to plague us until the community realizes that MOS is a special animal that reasonably needs to be handled top-down, not bottom-up like other types of guidelines. Or, submits MOS to MFD. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahrtoodeetoo the situation is a bit messier — sometimes it is the President, and there does seem to be allowance of local consensus, plus some misreading of it as directive to reword so as to get to lowercase, and a de facto that the prior MOS saying the other way is still mostly what’s out there. I believe that the change to MOS:JOBTITLES was somewhat wrong for the bullet re titles are capitalised not by their directive of if a ‘the’ precedes it but whether it is followed by ‘of #placename’ making it a proper noun. I was against lowercase ‘the queen of the United Kingdom’ enough to revert edits that way and this seems accepted. That it should always be a P in phrases such as “President of the United States” is not accepted and got changed in a lot of the prominent pages, but most usages are on other pages and seem capitalised. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of titles, such as "the Queen" or "the President" is sometimes made out of respect but is not necessary. TFD (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

True, but here we are talking more of where grammar guides and/or the former MOS dictated capitalised. So currently it’s a bit of a mess, as things often are. The new MOS use has gotten to decapitalize many prominent US cases. Generally it seems nobility and foreign leaders still are capitalised. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Attention to business sections

Given that we have subarticles on Trump's business career, there is a lot of summarising and condensing that can be done of the sections we have on this article, with some able to be moved off from here entirely. I will see what I can do but I think this should be as much a priority, or even higher, as the personal life sections in addressing the quality of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind proposing any substantial removals of content here before implementing them, please? R2 (bleep) 16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Energy and Climate

I split the "Energy" and "Climate" sections and added the following language to the Energy section:

− On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783 on Energy Independence. This Executive Order directed the Environmental Protection Agency to suspend, revise, or rescind actions related to the Clean Power Plan that the administration argued stifle the American energy industry. As a result, in early December 2018, the US became a net exporter of oil, after nearly 75 continuous years of dependence on foreign oil.

Even though written from a neutral point of view, cited properly, and relevant, the edit was reverted by Ahrtoodeetoo, stating it was not neutral. I have no clue what the issue with this edit could be, since as you can see it IS written from a neutral point of view, and the edit should be reinstated forthwith.JohnTopShelf (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

References

You make a dubious connection (synth) between EO 13783 and America becoming a net oil exporter, while you do not mention these far more obvious connections: The Obama administration cleared the way for the first exports of unrefined American oil in nearly four decades, allowing energy companies to start chipping away at the longtime ban on selling U.S. oil abroad in 2014 and With the stroke of a pen, President Barack Obama on Friday ended 40 years of U.S. crude oil export limits by signing off on a repeal passed by Congress earlier in the day in 2015. soibangla (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, Obama allowing unrefined oil to be exported has little if anything to do with the U.S. being a NET oil exporter. We became a net oil exporter by producing more oil than we use. That did not happen under Obama, or as a result of Obama stroking a pen. As you are no doubt aware, Obama consistently took measures to reduce, not increase, America's fossil fuel production.JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Obama did indeed take measures consistent with the pressing climate crisis, but at the same time he paved the way for exports. In contrast, Trump's policy ignores (and even denies) the scientific reality of the climate crisis and has paved the way for energy companies to enrich themselves at the expense of the planet. Your edits attempted to uncouple the connection between energy and climate and treat energy like it was in a vacuum. Moreover, your hagiographic verbiage failed to neutrally present the tremendous criticism Trump's actions attracted. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Scjessey (talk): Including language such as "climate crisis", "paved the way for energy companies to enrich themselves at the expense of the planet", "tremendous criticism", and "hagiographic verbiage" in your statement shows your bias and does not further a reasonable discussion of this issue. Further, I am certainly not trying to paint President Trump as a saint. However, I can't help but notice that many editors seem intent on doing just that with the Barack Obama article, which includes about 1% as much critical language as the Donald Trump article.JohnTopShelf (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

We became a net oil exporter by producing more oil than we use is incorrect. We became a net exporter because we exported more than we imported, and this was possible because the export ban was repealed. Moreover, your assertion that this made us oil-independent is incorrect, as we still import lots of oil. soibangla (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is getting reinstated "forthwith" without consensus. There were multiple problems with this content, including:

1. The paragraph mixes the concepts of energy exports (or energy independence) and oil exports (or oil independence). These are quite different things.
2. The critical phrase "as a result," which purports to tie the paragraph together, fails verification. The Bloomberg source doesn't say anything about any executive order.
3. Public statements by the Trump White House aren't reliable for anything.
4. There has to be a really compelling reason to use a primary source in this article, such as EPA and White House statements. If something is noteworthy about Donald Trump, you'll find it in independent secondary sources. The independent secondary sources will guide us in understanding a neutral presentation.
5. There needs to be a showing that the subject matter is noteworthy to fit into this extremely dense (and probably too long) article. This generally requires multiple independent secondary sources demonstrating some long-term significance.
6. If we're going to include content about the rollback of the Clean Power Plan, then we have to treat it in a comprehensive fashion. I haven't followed Trump's efforts closely, but I know what you added isn't comprehensive. Trump's policy to rollback the CPP have been the news for years, and is a lot more than about net energy exports.

R2 (bleep) 18:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

1)The public statement by the White House was to explain Trump's rationale behind the executive order; for that purpose the cite is reliable. 2)The EPA website is cited to show the date of the order to EPA; for that purpose it is the best reference. 3)Achieving oil independence is certainly noteworthy. 4)As you note, the article is dense - it is not the place for a comprehensive treatment of the Clean Power Plan. But there is no point in me continuing, due to the "consensus" requirement, which apparently trumps (no pun intended) all of the other Wikipedia policies, including the foundation principle of "neutral point of view". The editors here have demonstrated that there will likely never be consensus for any positive statement regarding Trump's policies or actions, although there can be consensus to characterize him as a liar and racist in the lead section.JohnTopShelf (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You might be more successful in that regard if you focused more on consensus building and less on the ad hominems, the obviousness, and the unfairness of it all. R2 (bleep) 21:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course I am trying to include a positive statement in the article, in an effort to offset all the criticism in the article. (I don't take issue with well-cited, accurate criticism, and there are certainly areas in which Trump should be criticized.) But it should also be obvious that there is a significant difference in the content and point of view of BLP articles about liberals vs. articles about conservatives. A few positive statements about conservatives and a few critical statements about liberals, properly cited of course, would certainly help in tipping the balance ever so slightly toward level.JohnTopShelf (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should represent facts as perceived by reliable sources. The simple fact of the matter is that in the last 50 years or so, Republican presidents have generally managed to do a lot more bad shit worthy of scathing critique than Democratic presidents, and Trump is perhaps the worst of them all. The same is true for other politicians, although as you get closer to the local level it seems like Democrats tend to be more problematic. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Seriously,Scjessey (talk)? This is your idea of a reasonable, objective debate on an issue? You consider it a fact that Republican presidents have generally managed to do a lot more bad shit worthy of scathing critique than Democratic presidents, and Trump is perhaps the worst of them all? I understand we all have opinions, but statements like yours have no place in this or any discussion.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It's far more simple than that. As a result, in early December 2018, the US became a net exporter of oil, after nearly 75 continuous years of dependence on foreign oil ranges from speculative to false. It really is just that simple. soibangla (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you have misunderstood our neutrality policy. It says that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant items that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This does not mean that Topic A (e.g. Trump) and Topic B (e.g. some other politician) should have the same ratio of "positive" versus "negative" content. In fact, there's very little criticism in the article at all. Most of what's in there is simply a summary of verifiable facts. The fact that some of those facts might reflect negatively or positively on the subject is not our concern. On top of that, neutrality doesn't mean we publish information not supported by the cited sources. R2 (bleep) 23:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• User:JohnTopShelf thanks for adding, and mostly this is good.

• the first line EO and EPA cite are fine,
• the announced intent and White House cite are fine
• the exports exceeding imports and cite are mostly good, but drop the beginning “As a result” as that credits the EO, but Bloomberg credits the Shale boom.

I suggest seeking another cite or two in the energy area, perhaps other events occur between early 2017 and late 2018. (Pipelines perhaps?) You should also consider posting to Presidency of Donald Trump. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User:JohnTopShelf On second thought, fix is too easy so I’ll just edit from what you had. Others can add more Energy material maybe. (Opening Federal areas for drilling, the odd phrase “Energy Dominance”, the “Affordable Clean Energy Plan” (pro-coal), the New Mexico lease, etcetera.) Will see what happens. The prior material was only Climate so it makes sense to at least fix it’s title anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You might think the EPA and White House citations are fine, but that doesn't mean they're supported by consensus. R2 (bleep) 00:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to not understand that sources are never a matter of consensus; they are presented to satisfy WP:V give the source so people can check it is from something other than beliefs and experiences of editors, and that the article text is a fair paraphrase. Never a matter of consensus, but rather a matter of factually where did you get that article line. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It really should go without saying that the White House and the EPA are not neutral sources. If this is notable in any way then we should expect reliable news media sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I followed the suggestions and advice, and fixed my edit. Thank you to everyone for your assistance in making this article better.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Your latest edits did not follow the suggestions and advice. You cherry-picked some feedback and ignored the rest. R2 (bleep) 16:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's a fact check of the claim that the US became a net exporter of crude oil: No, The U.S. Is Not A Net Exporter Of Crude Oil. We need to do a bit more research before including this claim, especially in Wikipedia's voice. – bradv🍁 13:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's another Bloomberg article from just days later:

The U.S. Energy Information Administration has published its first detailed monthly oil forecast for 2020 and it shows something that should strike fear into the hearts of OPEC ministers — from the fourth quarter, America will export more oil than it imports. This won’t make the U.S. independent of the global supply chain.

Bloomberg is highly reliable, but every reliable source errs occasionally, and I think the Bloomberg article in the edit was seriously botched. Again, the reason exports have soared is because the 40-year export ban was repealed in Dec 2015. This was done in part due to the fracking boom, because it created a huge supply glut that had nowhere to go, but it couldn't have gone anywhere unless the export ban had been lifted. That was the key factor at play, not Trump's policies, not the fracking boom. soibangla (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course the fracking boom has had a lot to do with it. It's a combination or market forces and regulatory reform. But no reliable source has indicated that the Trump administration was the cause. Plus, again, we're mixing oil with natural gas and other sources of energy. The two cannot be conflated (as the proposed content does). R2 (bleep) 23:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

False Statements

In the "False Statements" section there is a sentence that reads: "His falsehoods have also become a distinctive part of his political identity." The citation is to an opinion article in the New Yorker. This is not a reliable source - it is an opinion. The sentence needs to be removed.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No, that's a news article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/trumps-escalating-war-on-the-truth-is-on-purpose - MrX 🖋

Characterize it as you may, the statement is clearly an opinion, and an inflammatory one at that. The sentence should be removed unless there is another, reliable, cite for this.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding "clearly" to your argument does not change the facts. The New Yorker article is a news article. The reporter stated a fact, that is not in serious dispute.[43][44][45][46][47]- MrX 🖋 13:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@MrX Calling an assertion like this from a well known liberal magazine a “fact” from a “news article” is transparently biased and ludicrous. This must be removed to lend some semblance of credibility to Wiki as an encyclopedia. How about: “Biden’s numerous changes of positions over the years on salient issues such as abortion for the sake of political expediency has become part of his political identify.”? To call such an assertion part of a “news article” brings to mind Benjamin Franklin’s admonition about names: “If you call an ox a bull he’d thank you for the compliment, but he would much rather have back that which was so wrongfully taken from him.”HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

HistoryBuff14, do you need clarification on how a clause like "for the sake of political expediency" violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR? And the New Yorker is a legitimate source. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

HistoryBuff14, feel free to cite reliable sources that state that Trump's lies are not a part of his political identity. I'll wait. I'll also wait for you to cite the Wikipedia policy that says that " well known liberal magazine[s]" are incapable of reporting facts.- MrX 🖋 16:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu&nbspYes, I do recognize such! That was the point of my hypothetical counterexample of the Trump description from a biased source. The New Yorker is a valid source, including quotes that are clearly opinion if noted as such as would be the hypothetical Biden example. Apparently, this eluded your comprehension. I call for a vote on removing this quote unless it is clearly cited as an opinion.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen a near-continuous drumbeat of news coverage about Biden's waffling. Therein lies the difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

HistoryBuff14, I suppose that what has "eluded my comprehension" is how you can say "The New Yorker is a valid source" a sentence after calling it a "biased source". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Even if it was an opinion, the correct solution is not deletion, but attribution. We document facts and opinions here, and opinions are often the most interesting and influential part of the "sum total of human knowledge" which we are tasked with documenting. Also, if an opinion is indistinguishable from fact, the attribution is questionable, as framing factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well and serves to undermine the factual nature of the content. It would serve to frame facts as mere opinions which can be ignored. Self-(Redacted). -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear BullRangifer (talk): With all due respect, your comment (framing factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well) makes no sense. There is no such thing as a "factual opinion". A statement is either a fact, or it is an opinion. The two terms are mutually exclusive. Also - opinions are not part of "sum total of human knowledge". That is simply ridiculous. To characterize any opinion as fact, and include it as part of an article and part of the human knowledge base, poisons the well.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf, maybe that was clumsily-written, so here goes... We often use sources which are literally labeled "Opinion", and then some editor comes along who doesn't know the facts of the matter, and they claim that a fact stated in that opinion article is just the author's opinion.

It is such editors who create a problem by trying to force attribution of a fact because it was written in the author's opinion article. Those who know the facts will say there is no need for attribution of such a fact, while those who are ignorant of those facts will argue for attribution of it as an opinion.

Opinion statements nearly always include facts, and knowing the difference requires knowledge of those facts. In short, some opinions are indistinguishable from facts, hence such opinions are essentially stating facts. That may not make sense to you, but if you really want to get the point you will. If you wish to quibble, then you'll also do that. Whatever.

"Characterizing any opinion as fact" is not allowed here, and characterizing a fact as opinion is also wrong. Knowing the difference is wisdom. If enough RS state that such and such is the way it is, then we state it as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, even if a fringe minority disputes it. (We often note that view, giving it extremely minor weight.) Unfortunately, there are quite a few people who think Trump is honest, but those sources are so ignorant of the facts that their counter-factual opinions are discounted and generally ignored. We don't base our content on unreliable sources.

Opinions are very much a part of the "sum total of human knowledge". People know and are aware of facts, nonsense, lies, conspiracies, fringe nonsense, religious beliefs, etc. We are required to document all of this, as long as it's been documented in RS. If it doesn't even make it that far, then we don't.

Wikipedia would serve a very limited purpose if it only documented unarguable facts. It would also be boring as hell. Most RS document plenty of opinions and controversies. (Yes, controversies wouldn't be allowed here because they are often differences of opinion.) It would ignore most of what society discusses and what predicates many important events and wars. If you want to exclude use and documentation of opinions here, you'll have to change some policies. That is not done on this page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is the sort of content that we include all the time, all over Wikipedia. It comes from one of the most reputable outlets out there. There's nothing "opinion" about it. R2 (bleep) 16:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This sort of content is indeed included in many Wikipedia articles, which is problematic. Including opinion, especially when characterized as fact, should never be allowed as it undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Claims about effects on Wikipedia's credibility are 100% subjective and unprovable, and really have no place in content discussions. Regardless, to any extent that compliance with Wikipedia policies and principles harms Wikipedia's credibility among people who don't know the first thing about those policies and principles, that is just a cross we have to bear as an encyclopedia. I think we'll survive. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia no doubt has zero credibility in the eyes of at least a third of the U.S. population because it says unfavorable things about Trump, completely consistent with policy (WP:PUBLICFIGURE among others). To these people, neutrality means your material about the subject is neither positive nor negative, and that's because they know nothing about our policies. To some, it can be positive and negative, but only in equal amounts (false balance). To some, even, we should say only positive things about Trump, because that's the "truth". And there are just as many Trump opponents who feel we should say only negative things because that's the "truth".

Should we modify our content to accommodate these groups and earn back their trust? Of course not. So credibility has nothing to do with it, does it? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The point I was making, which was apparently lost among the rants about modifying content to appease certain groups, is that articles should be factual. Opinion should not be included in articles, in particular if it is characterized as fact.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The point I was making, which was apparently lost in your attempt to sidestep it, is that you should limit your comments to policy questions and stop trying to hold Wikipedia's credibility hostage. Just leave that word out of it, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Leave it in. 2600:1702:2340:9470:384E:CC1E:DA23:D760 (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Take it out unless it can be sourced WIDELY.. It is making a rather broad and fundamental claim of personality, a psychology statement. Does not seem like the author is qualified, but let’s look first at if it is UNDUE and POV. If this broad and fundamental claim is an actual aspect, then it would logically be universally and frequently remarked on. That’s the logic of WP:PUBLICFIGURE anyway, although this is not about a single incident. If this is only expressed by the New Yorker author then it’s by that fact a fringe position. If it is only expressed by a few sources, it’s by that fact a minority opinion. If it’s only expressed by some left-wing sources, it’s by that fact a POV. So just see if this is also said in BBC and USAToday, then in Foxnews and Washington Examiner. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as blatantly biased opinion that makes a mockery of Wikipedia’s claim to be a serious electronic encyclopedic work. If a similar remark about a liberal public figure came from a conservative publication similar in tone to the The New Yorker, such as National Review, it would have been removed post-haste!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  HistoryBuff14, nice attempt at a strawman argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  @HistoryBuff14: Can you think of a single notable liberal politician with whom falsehoods are a distinctive part of their political identity? Trump's mendacity is his defining characteristic, and such a statement is backed up by all media, irrespective of whether it is liberal media or conservative media. If anything, this article has been extraordinarily generous to Trump in downplaying his unprecedented penchant for falsehood. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey Please see my first comment on this thread regarding a hypothetical dig at Biden by a detractor. I wasn’t talking about this exact reference, but one akin in spirit. BTW, once again thank your for your civility in accepting my apology after our unfortunate recent clash due to my misunderstanding your intent regarding a comment you had left. You are a gentleman, and it is appreciatedHistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I can think of a number of liberal politicians whose falsehoods are part of their political identity. Remember "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky?" That certainly defined Clinton. How about Obama's "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?" That was a whopper. How about "First of all, I didn’t set a red line". Or "Fast and Furious began under the Bush Administration (it began in 2009). All politicians lie - liberals and conservatives.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course other presidents lied. They just did not lie with the frequency, magnitude and repetition that Trump has. Fast & Furious was v2 of Operation Wide Receiver, which began in 2006. soibangla (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf, Obama didn't lie, he was wrong. Big difference. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Scjessey - can we 'think of one liberal politicians associated with falsehoods'!?! Well, during the campaign Hillary was the one said to be the compulsive liar. JohnTopShelf mentioned a couple large instances, but I could also note LBJ and JFK, and way back there is FDR... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: None of those politicians have falsehoods as "a distinctive part of their political identity". -- Scjessey (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Scjessey. ?!? Seriously, that’s as silly as saying there are no liberal politicians associated with falsehoods.... hope you don’t think you have an edit like either one. Look, I simply don’t see an edit here and what breadth of cites say that? If it’s only based on NewYorker it’s demonstrated FRINGE; if it’s only liberal media it’s demonstrated POV and possibly Propaganda; if it is also in BBC and CBS then it’s demonstrated as widely held; and if it gets commonly said in conservatives Foxnews et al it could be taken as general consensus said without caveats. But seriously, which part of Hillary being noted as ‘compulsive liar’ or ‘congenital liar’ did not sound like “a distinctive part of their political identity” ? For the others — their lies are explicitly noted bigger, longer repeated, and badder. (Of serious harm to individuals and the nation and a noted blot on their legacies and history.) Try reading out of non-liberal press, and you will find enough criticisms of them to accept that such comments at least exist widely for many Presidents. The counting in recent years is novel, but that ties to a “fact-check” form of opinion column that does counting being invented since the days of LBJ, not to politicians having been honest in days of yore. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett:, have you read the sources? Here's one quoted in the article: ... the entry of Donald Trump into the US political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented. This means however much Hilary Clinton (or any other politician) was a "compulsive liar", Donald Trump is worse. There's no point bringing up other politicians when the sources say Donald Trump is the biggest liar of all. starship.paint (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint That's not in the attempt to claim 'liberals don't lie' or 'well at least aren't part of their identity'. But as to this -- You got a lot that doesn't seem to be there -- read the cite (not in the article text) more closely and it says "lying in politics" which would have included Hillary -- and "in politics" could be read as not just folks like her and Pelosi and such politicians but to also include the other players -- advocacy groups, fake news, and simple coverage from Acosta or Limbaugh, MSNBC or Fox. Just her view there, but it's portraying the sociology or group dynamics rather than any claim that it's just Trump who does it all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - you have proven that you haven’t read the article I cited. Maybe I should have linked to it. Here it is: [48]. If you had indeed read the article, instead of the quote, you would not have made your above argument. Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in US politics. starship.paint (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint Wrong again, I had read it and a couple of the links it has. I simply pointed out that your offered quote before did not occur in the article as you said, nor did that quote actually say what you claimed out of it, and also pointed out the Toronto Star had a different view in the link I followed from the article. Specifically from where she quotes his he's habitually erring. At [the] very least, it suggests a serial carelessness with the facts and a serial resistance to conceding error. The assertion or at least the phrasing chosen obviously differs from the phrasing being said -- even after stripping off the silly bits, so again the article phrasing seems either POV or semi-Common, though maybe FRINGE because it's just not a common way to phrase things. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - you've never mentioned the Toronto Star in this section before. The only mention of Toronto Star on this talk page is you, virtually a month ago. es, McGranahan did quote the Toronto Star, but she also offered her own view, and succinctly, it is: his lies are off the charts. Also, what do you mean that my offered quote not appearing in the article? It's right there in the ABSTRACT It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the US political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented. Also, now you're starting to argue that the phrasing is uncommon so that article is maybe FRINGE? I'm gobsmacked. starship.paint (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I don't even know how to respond to your ludicrous comment, except to echo Starship.paint's note about Trump being demonstrably the most prolific liar in political history, with the scope of his mendacity documented in exhaustive detail by a number of respectable media outlets. There's just nothing whatsoever to support your arguments, unless your source is exclusively Sean Hannity, or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Scjessey Glad to see you've gotten more realistic than saying the Trump claim is "backed up by all media, irrespective of whether it is liberal media or conservative media" into just ones you view as respectable, and away from him telling the 'biggest' or 'worst' ones to a plausible 'most prolific'. So go ahead and do that 'demonstrably' for WP:V and to clarify which of my categories it fits to. If it is few to none in the conservative third of coverage support this, or little to none in the middle third, or whether 'just the NewYorker and a couple others' use the edit phrasing. It seems an odd phrasing, so it seems unlikely that all others in any third would follow suit, and it's the breadth of this that any edits should convey. My impression is that the few fact-checker opinion sources portray it sometimes as a herd of trivial inaccuracies showing a systemic distain for accuracy, as one contrasting view. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump Heights

How about a reference to Trump Heights in the Israel section?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please ask yourself if this purely symbolic naming of an empty patch of ground in an illegally occupied part of Syria is biographically significant. I would argue the answer is an emphatic no. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't agree on a lot, but I have to agree with Scjessey (talk) on this, although I would use slightly less emphasis on the no.;)-JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I did think about it, and I thought the answer was a clear yes, with the qualification that it would be better to check with other editors before editing the article. As for Scjessey's response, is there any other kind of naming than "purely symbolic naming"? Aren't Mt Everest, Mt McKinley, Mt Rushmore etc basically "empty patches of ground"? Doesn't the fact that the land is in "illegally occupied part of Syria" make it more significant, not less?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

List of things named after Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

It isn't an actual settlement. It's a proposal and they don't even have an agreed upon site. MAYBE when/if it gets built, it would be worth mentioning but right now, it only exists by name, it isn't a reality. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

So Mt Everest doesn't exist???--Jack Upland (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mt Everest is in itself notable (as are the other mountains), whereas the patch of undeveloped ground called "Trump Heights" is not. It certainly isn't content worthy of inclusion in this biography, particularly as we are working hard to try to trim its length. I honestly can't believe we are still discussing this. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mt Everest doesn't exist anymore - it's now Denali.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

We wouldn't be discussing this if your arguments made sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@JohnTopShelf: Mt Everest has been moved to Alaska and renamed (first Mt McKinley and then) Denali? Amazing. Bishonen | talk 06:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC).

Environmental positions in lead

Shouldn't his environmental policies be included in the lead? Arguably, it's been one of the policies in government that he has effectively changed by means of executive orders and control over various governmental agencies. The fact that he has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, stopped the planned [[Clean Power Plan], and his belief that humans are not behind climate change, among other factors, seems to be independent enough to include in the lead. Does anyone have any objections to adding it? MarvellingLiked (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The Paris agreement pull out is already in the lead. His views on climate change are pretty much boiler plate Republican. His actions with respect to the Clean Power Plan are not really lead worthy.- MrX 🖋 16:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Add It 2600:1702:2340:9470:384E:CC1E:DA23:D760 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

New allegations of sexual assault / rape

trump recently has been accused of another sexual assult..it needs to be in the article 2600:1702:2340:9470:3108:93CE:D0C9:FBB6 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

What is an alligation? What is assult? Learn to spell, learn to cite, and leave your name, and maybe you could be taken seriously.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I would have said there is already enough here on the general subject and it belongs in the main article on the misconduct allegations. But, there is the word "rape" this time. O3000 (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

There is. 2600:1702:2340:9470:3108:93CE:D0C9:FBB6 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not it should be included here will depend on the degree of coverage it receives going forward. TFD (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

TFD: Not necessarily.[49] ―Mandruss ☎ 00:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that every day Trump tweets or says or does something or is accused of having done something outrageous. If we include every single one of them, the article will become unreadable. Suppose for example that we had separate paragraphs for each of other 20+ accusers? TFD (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the wait-and-see approach. There are too many controversies to cover here and this isn't even the first allegation of this nature. We'll have to access the degree of coverage before we determine weight.LM2000 (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: see below. starship.paint (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources with main subject being Carroll's allegation

Associated Press (news agency) Agence France Presse (news agency, this page in German) BBC (British company) Jerusalem Post (Israeli company) CBC (Canadian company) The National (United Arab Emirates company) O Globo (Brazilian company, Portuguese language) El Pais (Spanish company, Spanish language) Der Speigel (German company, German language) Beijing News (Chinese company, Chinese language) Thanh Niên (Vietnamese company, Vietnamese language) Hurriyet (Turkish company, Turkish language) DR (Danish company, Danish language) Tabnak (Iranian company) Dainik Bhaskar (Indian company, Hindi language) Radio Korea (Korean company, Korean language) de Volkskrant (Dutch newspaper, Dutch language) Gatra (Indonesian company, Indonesian language) La Chaîne Info (French company, French language) De Standaard (Belgium company, Dutch language) Ara (Spanish newspaper, Catalan language)

@TFD, LM2000, and Mandruss: I regret to say that this wasn't international news in Antarctica, but I found it was international news on every other continent.starship.paint (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

If this is a defining moment in his presidency, it belongs here. It definitely belongs in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree.2600:1702:2340:9470:7C6C:B088:A333:1D6B (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: - disagree with the first sentence. This is his biography, not his presidency page. The allegation relates to Trump the man, not Trump the president. starship.paint (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I consider what happens when he is president to be part of his presidency, but the same applies to his life. If this is a defining moment in his life, it belongs here. Otherwise, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. It's notable enough for Wikipedia, but this article has a much higher standard. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Trump is in every major newspaper in every continent every day. Being U.S. president makes him the major newsmaker in the world, and his personality magnifies that. In his 8 year presidency, there will be 2.922 days, hence thousands of stories. He's the lead story in today's BBC News] because of Iran. He's actually managed to turn the Iran story into three stories: a plan to bomb them, a decision not to and now an announcement of sanctions. If he isn't still on the front page today, he'll tweet something tonight that will get discussed on CNN for the next 24 hours. TFD (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

😂 What would MSM do without him? He feeds the fervor of 21st century journalism. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It`s called spin. 2600:1702:2340:9470:E03B:8D42:595C:FCEC (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: - stuff with Iran is about Trump the president. Trump the president has many stories, since he's the president of the U.S. This is Trump the man, it's not the same. starship.paint (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Chances are they are simply reporting from a wire service, so we count them as a single source. And let's not forget RECENTISM. Let's wait and see if the allegations have any teeth. The timing seems rather odd considering how long ago it was supposed to have happened. I'm thinking it will be as credible as the airplane allegation. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: - Chances are they are simply reporting from a wire service, so we count them as a single source. - really, a single source? (1) It's still expanded coverage (2) Wire services don't report trivial stories, they report on significant stories around the world. (3) Likewise, newspapers don't use wire services for trivial stories, they use them for significant international stories that will be of interest to the home countries. You can't just ignore all of them as the same source. I'd say around half of those sources are not wire stories, anyway. I haven't even started finding American sources yet. starship.paint (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG - "Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source." ^Atsme _Talk 📧 06:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: - thank you. I will now delete all multiples of wire services articles in the template. starship.paint (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: - I've found more sources, as far as I can tell, they are not using wire services - you are free to double check. 21 sources, because I accidentally found two sources from Spain. Do you then accept (once you've checked) that there is indeed a wide variety of sources covering this incident? starship.paint (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The President of the United States is credibly accused of rape, then he lies about never having even met his accuser, and our response is basically to shrug and say "wait and see." That is absolutely the correct response (we do indeed need to wait to see how the story develops), but it boggles the mind that we've come to this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Also of note, E. Jean Carroll's independent notability is most probably the highest out of all the accusers so far. Ivana hasn't been that independent of Trump... starship.paint (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a compelling case for mentioning this briefly in this bio. The accuser is credible, the story is a familiar one for this subject, and there are a large number of reliable sources reporting about it.- MrX 🖋 16:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

An unsubstatuated allegation that is beyond the statute of prosecution....is a nothingburger. Unless she can produce some proof aside from her word I cant see any reason it belongs in THIS article. Put it the allegations article, maybe.--MONGO (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Would you also support removing the Juanita Broaddrick rape accusation from Bill Clinton so it's only in Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations? Just wonderin' soibangla (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Wasnt Broaddrick was a reluctant witness...not someone trying to sell a book.--MONGO (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

So, she's trying to sell a book, and she gives out the juiciest part for the press to publish. Not initially reporting the crime at the time, sounds pretty reluctant to me: Receiving death threats, being driven from my home, being dismissed, being dragged through the mud, and joining the 15 women who’ve come forward with credible stories about how the man grabbed, badgered, belittled, mauled, molested, and assaulted them, only to see the man turn it around, deny, threaten, and attack them, never sounded like much fun. Also, I am a coward. starship.paint (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Others came forward prior to the election. Where was she since this happened either in the fall or spring 30 years prior to the election. I know if this traumatic vent happened to me I'd sure know the date to a greater degree of precision. But Dont think for a minute rape allegations should not be taken seriously, but it is just her word and his word so all we have is an allegation. An allegation she says she does not want prosecuted and it cant be prosecuted anyway since the event happened when the statute of limitations was 5 years.--MONGO (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

What's your point in terms of Wikipedia guidelines? O3000 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh come on, MONGO, don't discredit her just because she took this long to talk about it. In the #MeToo era, we have plenty of similar examples. Also, you say you would know the date with precision. [50] Experts say that during trauma, the brain does select for salient details. [51] A psychologist says traumatic memories are not indelible. Researchers [52] say It is not reasonable to expect a trauma survivor ... to recall traumatic events the way they would recall their wedding day. starship.paint (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The accuser claims they still have the outfit they were wearing when this alleged incident occurred and it has not been laundered...so maybe the NYPD can shed some light onto this matter. Regardless, it seems implausible that they would have the wherewithal to be able to recite the event with such clarity, have retained the clothes unlaundered since said event yet can't remember within a 6-9 month time window as to when it happened.--MONGO (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

starship.paint, there's a fine line between Trump the man and Trump the president. He is most notable for being president. On the other hand, personal scandals could harm his re-election. Scjessey makes a good point: "it boggles the mind that we've come to this point." I suggest we wait and see if this latest story gains traction. I question by the way whether Trump lied about never meeting Carroll before. They were both photographed at an NBC party in 1987, but Carroll says she had never met Trump before the alleged encounter at Bergdorf Goodman a decade later. soibangla, you would have to discuss Bill Clinton in that article. The Broaddrick case has received more coverage than this case has. In time, this case may receive as much or more coverage, at which point we can re-visit the issue, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. TFD (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"The Broaddrick case has received more coverage than this case has." - That's partly because this case is just one of a gazillion. When the fire hose is spraying you, the individual drops of water don't mean much. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: - these allegations are clearly about Trump the man. It's not business or politics or TV. Also, you said Carroll says she had never met Trump before the alleged encounter at Bergdorf Goodman a decade later. Source please? Carroll said the opposite in the Cut [53] (the original New York story): We’ve met once before, and perhaps it is the dusky light but he looks prettier than ever. starship.paint (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was basing my conclusion on the source used (BBC), which merely says Goodman "says she recognised him as the "real estate tycoon"", not that they had actually met. I hadn't read her article which says, "We’ve met once before." My point still stands that Trump may have forgotten meeting her at the NBC party over 30 years ago. And of course allegations of personal wrongdoing against politicians is political. Remember the Clinton impeachment? TFD (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: - please strike your inaccurate comment from before. Yes, Trump may have forgotten, but he didn't say: "I don't remember ever meeting this person", he said: "I've never met this person in my life". Yes, allegations of personal wrongdoing are political, but they are still more appropriate for this article over the presidency, since they occurred before this presidency. No, I don't remember the Clinton impeachment, I'm not American, and don't know many American things. starship.paint (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I remember the Bill Clinton impeachment. The whole Lewinsky scandal was politicizes from Day One, and I mean Linda Tripp recording the conversation. This allegation does not appear to be political. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not saying the accusations were politically motivated. Clinton's impeachment related to Paula Jones, not Monica Lewinsky. starship.paint, by your standards, anyone who ever said they had not met someone would be lying, even if they had not met them. Whether or not he was lying, and not simply mistaken, is a matter of judgment, which requires reliable sources, not editors. Anyway, since you are unfamiliar, a number of "Bimbo eruptions" threatened Clinton's first campaign and ultimately his presidency as a number of women accused him of adultery and sexual assault. In the absence of any real ideological differences between the two parties, partisans tend to resort to personal attacks. TFD (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: (1) by your standards, anyone who ever said they had not met someone would be lying, even if they had not met them. - no...? You argued that he may have forgotten, when that wasn't his statement. I'm questioning your characterization, I'm not saying everyone must be lying. (2) partisans tend to resort to personal attacks - did Obama and George W. Bush have sexual misconduct allegations? Did Bush Sr. have any during his term? How about the presidents before? How many American presidents have sexual misconduct allegations arise during their term or candidacies? (3) Again, please strike Carroll says she had never met Trump before the alleged encounter at Bergdorf Goodman a decade later. You have acknowledged it is false. It violates WP:BLP. starship.paint (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A total of 16 out of 45 U.S. presidents have faced sex scandals, including both Bushes, according to an article in Business Insider. There have also been a lot of high profile politicians brought down by them. By the way, I forgot to strike out my earlier text, but it is not a BLP violation. Anyway, we keep getting farther away from the issue. What goes into articles is solely determined by weight, which is established by mainstream news sources, not Wikipedia editors. And could you please stop quoting me. I am well aware of what I have written. TFD (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: - You might be aware, but I was more so quoting for others to follow the conversation. By referring to sex scandals in Business Insider, you've changed the argument. Here is the article: [54]. Out of the 15 prior presidents, 12 of their scandals were regarding adultery (5 of these had wedlock too). How many presidents, like Trump, were accused of sexual misconduct or rape before/during their term? Only Grover Cleveland, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, according to Business Insider. That's 4 out of 45, including Trump (less than 10%, compared to your above figure of more than 33% for sex scandals). Now, you refer to mainstream news sources. I provided international ones above. Do you need me to find American ones too? starship.paint (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It does not matter whether you think this story is important but whether sources do, per weight. Articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." TFD (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: - this is weird. You’re the one who brought up the Business Insider piece, in an apparent argument that sex scandals among presidents are common and thus not that important...? Then when I bring up few misconduct scandals among presidents, you argue personal views of importance don’t matter? So now you’re talking about sources. Have I not provided you 21 sources? Are they unreliable? Are they enough... do you need more? starship.paint (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I brought it up, if you remember, in reply to your questions, did Obama and George W. Bush have sexual misconduct allegations? Did Bush Sr. have any during his term? How about the presidents before? How many American presidents have sexual misconduct allegations arise during their term or candidacies? (03:30, 24 June 2019). I also mentioned that it is unimportant, what is important is how this case is treated in reliable sources, per weight. It doesn't matter whether you or I find something important, but whether reliable sources do. This article cannot be more negative nor more positive about the subject than what we find in mainstream media. How and why they make their decisions is not something we can second-guess. While you do not have to agree with me, it is pointless to continue to stress your points and ask me to repeat mine. TFD (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Yes, I do remember. You first decided to answer my questions which are related to 'personal view of importance', and then after you did, you decided 'personal view of importance' was irrelevant anyway. You keep talking about weight in reliable sources, again, I have to repeat because you are not addressing this: I have provided 21 sources from international media. Is that enough to establish weight? Do you want 21 sources from American mainstream media? I can find them, sure, but you don't seem to be replying on this point. starship.paint (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

No they are not, because Trump is in the news every single day. If anyone is speaking about this a week from now, then it might have weight. Advice columnist Alia E. Dastagir has a good article in USA Today explaining the lack of attention, "Writer E. Jean Carroll accuses Trump of rape. Why are we so reluctant to talk about it?" There's an article in Salon, "Trump accused of rape, major media yawns: Why was E. Jean Carroll's story not front page news? The evidence supporting a new rape allegation against Trump is strong, but most media barely covered the story". In Vox, "Why E. Jean Carroll’s assault accusation against Trump wasn’t front-page news The muted response says a lot about how the press covers Trump." In The Atlantic, "The Cruel Paradox at the Heart of E. Jean Carroll’s Allegation Against Trump The famous writer’s rape accusation against the president fell victim to the familiar workings of attention fatigue. TFD (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: - okay, let's wait a week from now. However, while it is true that Trump is in the news every day, that's usually POTUS Trump, historically also businessman Trump and TV Trump. This is Trump in his personal life, absolutely not in the news every day. starship.paint (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please observe a 48-hour waiting period. Same-day edits just doesn't give any time for information or WEIGHT to appear. I tend to expect this will go into the other article as it doesn't seem to have more evidence than those or to have more impact than those, but let's come back to this in a couple days when we'd have more actual data rather than just my guessing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Restoring material

I made this edit - the edit summary explains why: (→‎Sexual misconduct allegations: a bit of ce for flow, and state what the sources support after verifying for accuracy what Trump actually said on the tape (WP is neither censored nor obligated to repeat misstatements or misrepresentations by cited sources)). Unfortunately, it was not long after I made the edit that BullRangifer restored what I believe to be UNDUE since we're already quoting his most widely covered comment in MSM, and should not be cherrypicking parts to hang on a COATRACK. wrongfully reverted part of it, and restored inaccurate events, misstatements by the cited sources whereas I was citing the NYTimes. I will begin with a local request regarding the restoration of the material I added. as I believe the revert was groundless.

Please comment in the relevant sections below. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC) ^{My sincere apologies to BullRangifer for my misreading of the edit history. Atsme _Talk 📧 20:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)}

• Approve changes by Atsme Diff
• Approve - quite simply, the material I added is accurate and properly presented according to the actual transcipt of the recording published by NYTimes whereas the material I removed that BullRangifer restored is inaccurate, misstated and noncompliant with NPOV and BLP.

• Approve Revert by BullRangifer Diff

• The whole section or a portion needs to be rewritten

• Discussion

Whoa! Not so fast. I didn't revert your whole edit. I only restored something you deleted, hopefully inadvertently. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I suggest you strike your comments above or completely close this thread. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with most of Atsme's edit except that I don't see any point in dragging in the Clintons. That part of his "apology" was not as widely reported as the rest. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Now that I see the three versions compared side-by-side, I prefer the original version; see my rationale below. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I see that that part has been simplified by R2. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You made many changes and lumped them all under a bit of ce for flow, and state what the sources support .... I would actually support some of them as improvements (and reject others as making the article worse, for example that long piece on the discussion on the bus that was inadvertently recorded. Bush responded: "Whatever you want ..." What does that add to the article except unnecessary bytes? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

When we quote a portion of a discussion, we do just that - we don't omit important statements that resulted in the response we're quoting as if it was a contiguous response when it was not. That is misleading. It was easier to add Bush's statement (which broke the contiguity of Trump's quote) in order to accurately quote Trump's response to his comment than it would have been to close the quote, add something in our words, and then finish the quote. MelanieN, I have no problem with eliminating the Clinton reference. My primary concern is getting the quote right. As an encyclopedia, we should not be spreading misinformation/misrepresentation of what someone actually said when we are actually able to verify for ourselves what they actually said. Better yet, when the transcript is actually published in a RS such as the NYTimes. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with your argument here. Our goal is to summarize things as the sources have, not to dig into the transcripts and try to clip them into what we feel is "getting it right" or whatever. Your edit to the section is WP:SYNTH - most coverage did not portray the topic from the perspective that you are trying to put it in here. --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, please strike your comments about me. You got it all wrong, right from the start. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Y ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• These changes go way beyond simple copyediting, and I have serious objections to some of them, especially the change to the key quote, which seems completely unjustified. Why did you put that he later defended as "locker room talk" at the very start of the section? That aspect isn't a major part of the topic. Why remove the During the recording, Trump also spoke of his efforts to seduce a married woman, saying he "moved on her very heavily"? I also don't think that changing with many Republicans withdrawing their endorsements of his candidacy and some urging him to quit the race to the more stilted resulting in a group of GOP senators and representatives withdrawing their support for his candidacy, and some requesting that he step aside is an improvement. The widespread media coverage of the 15 women who came forward after the tape is also important. And the random expansion of a dig at the Clintons seems unnecessary. --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• ?Ok to close the discussion? I think the section looks good the way it is now. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry - I was reading the wrong version - Aquillion's edit took Trump's quote out of context. You cannot break-up a quote and make it appear contiguous when he was responding to someone in between - that is misrepresentation. Bush made a comment to which Trump responded. It needs be restored to the way I had it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I added pink highlight to what needs to be restored. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Old text	Atsme's text	BullRangifer's revert
A total of 19 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct as of December 2017. Trump has denied all of the accusations, which he has called "false smears", and alleged a conspiracy against him. Two days before the second presidential debate of 2016, a 2005 recording surfaced in which Trump was heard bragging about forcibly kissing and groping women. The hot mic recording was captured on a studio bus in which Trump and Billy Bush were preparing to film an episode of Access Hollywood. In the tape, Trump said: "I just start kissing them ... I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything ... grab 'em by the pussy." During the recording, Trump also spoke of his efforts to seduce a married woman, saying he "moved on her very heavily". Trump's language on the tape was described by the media as "vulgar", "sexist", and descriptive of sexual assault. The incident prompted him to make his first public apology during the campaign, and caused outrage across the political spectrum, with many Republicans withdrawing their endorsements of his candidacy and some urging him to quit the race. Subsequently, at least 15 women came forward with new accusations of sexual misconduct, including unwanted kissing and groping, resulting in widespread media coverage. In his two public statements in response to the controversy, Trump referred to allegations of inappropriate behavior Bill and Hillary Clinton.	A total of 19 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct as of December 2017. He denied all accusations, calling them "false smears", and alleged there was a conspiracy against him. In 2016, two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 audio tape surfaced in which Trump, a television celebrity at the time, was recorded bragging about forcibly kissing and groping women. The hot mic discussion took place on a studio bus where Trump and Billy Bush were preparing to film an episode of Access Hollywood. Trump was inadvertently recorded making lewd and inappropriate statements that he later defended as "locker room talk", including the following: "You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." Bush responded, "Whatever you want..." to which Trump replied, "Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything." Trump's language on the tape has been described as "vulgar", "sexist", and descriptive of sexual assault. The incident's wide-spread media exposure led to Trump's first public apology during the campaign, and caused outrage across the political spectrum, resulting in a group of GOP senators and representatives withdrawing their support for his candidacy, and some requesting that he step aside. In addition to the 2 women who had previously alleged sexual misconduct against Trump, 15 more came forward after the tape was released with new accusations of sexual misconduct, including unwanted kissing and groping. Trump issued a public statement apologizing for his inappropriate boasting on the tape, but did not relent from his attacks on the Clintons, stating that "Bill Clinton 'actually abused women' and Hillary Clinton 'bullied women.'	A total of 19 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct as of December 2017. He denied all accusations, calling them "false smears", and alleged there was a conspiracy against him. In 2016, two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 audio tape surfaced in which Trump, a television celebrity at the time, was recorded bragging about forcibly kissing and groping women. The hot mic discussion took place on a studio bus where Trump and Billy Bush were preparing to film an episode of Access Hollywood. Trump was inadvertently recorded making lewd and inappropriate statements that he later defended as "locker room talk", including the following: "You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." Bush responded, "Whatever you want..." to which Trump replied, "Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything." During the recording, Trump also spoke of his efforts to seduce a married woman, saying he "moved on her very heavily". Trump's language on the tape has been described as "vulgar", "sexist", and descriptive of sexual assault. The incident's wide-spread media exposure led to Trump's first public apology during the campaign, and caused outrage across the political spectrum, resulting in a group of GOP senators and representatives withdrawing their support for his candidacy, and some requesting that he step aside. In addition to the 2 women who had previously alleged sexual misconduct against Trump, 15 more came forward after the tape was released with new accusations of sexual misconduct, including unwanted kissing and groping. Trump issued a public statement apologizing for his inappropriate boasting on the tape, but did not relent from his attacks on the Clintons, stating that "Bill Clinton 'actually abused women' and Hillary Clinton 'bullied women.'

Sources

1. How does it change the meaning significantly to omit Bush's interjection, which was just sycophantic parroting of what Trump just said? 2. Why are you assuming that Trump was replying to it, or even heard it and paid it any attention? 3. That it was omitted can be clarified with [...]. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No, we cannot use ... unless it was something he said contiguously. When person B interrupts the person A, we close quote. Then we either quote person B, or we add a summary of what B said that lead to person's A's following statement, which we begin with an open quote, state the response, and close quote. That's how it's done. The transcript shows that Bush said something between those dots that we now have in the article that led to the next quote by Trump. It is misrepresentation to make it appear Trump was not reacting/responding to what someone else said. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

We can do whatever makes sense to us as editors and is not inconsistent with policy. "That's how it's done" in my experience. In the interest of concision we omit things that are superfluous. You wrote over a hundred words without answering my question, so I'll repeat it. How does it change the meaning significantly to omit Bush's interjection, which was just sycophantic parroting of what Trump just said? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTE. Yes, it changes context. We don't know if Trump would have said what he did if Bush had not commented when he did. That's up to the readers to decide. If we're going to quote what a person said in a discussion, we present it faithfully, and if anything is changed - such as breaking up the sequence of the transcript - we indicate that as well. We simply don't eliminate one person's comment and quote another's as if it were contiguous when it was not. It might be a little different process if we were editing footage for TV news, but WP is an encyclopedia so he we have to provide some of what readers can't see to keep things in context...and in this case, it's Trump responding to Bush's statement. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

By your reasoning nobody could ever be quoted without also quoting what preceded it in the conversation, and yet we do that all the time, and that's fine unless their words were taken out of context in a significant way. You still have yet to explain that "significant way", instead repeating generalities about how things are done, so let's assume you have no explanation. You are still assuming that Trump was responding to Bush, that he wouldn't have said those words otherwise, when it's at least as likely that Trump merely skipped a beat because he was briefly interrupted. Even if you're right and he wouldn't have said those words otherwise, so what? He still said them and nobody forced him to do so, and that's not mitigated in the slightest by the interjection of three words from someone else. You are arguing something that doesn't matter. And many reliable sources agree with me, omitting Bush's three words themselves. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No, Mandruss - that is not the case at all. What you're proposing is to break up a conversation, omit the other party, and make it appear that Trump is saying this stuff to hear himself talk. He was responding in a discussion with Bush. We have open quote - close quote when another person responds. Something has to go between the close quote and the new open quote. It's that simple. Starship - why are you against including his own characterization of the discussion? Would it better if we used "described" in lieu of "defended"? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't agree with your interpretation that WP:QUOTE allows (let alone encourages) the version you're suggesting. WP:QUOTE is just the manual of style; WP:OR trumps it. And that requires us to use the version of the quote most commonly reported in reliable sources, rather than substituting it for one that you personally feel is "more accurate"; if you feel that Trump is misrepresented by that paraphrase, you should write to the articles we cite for it requesting a retraction. Wikipedia, though, isn't the place to try and correct the record - when a quote is heavily-covered by secondary sources, our responsibility is to cover the incident the way those sources do, not to try and dig into the primary quote and cut it up the way we personally feel is most complete or accurate. Or, in other words, you keep talking about trying to be fair and accurate to Trump; that is completely irrelevant and has absolutely no bearing on our article (in fact, it's a form of WP:FALSEBALANCE.) Our job is to be fair and accurate to the sources, ie. to summarize and reproduce them faithfully rather than to substitute our own analysis of the primary source. If you want to edit the version of the quote used, we'll have to dig into the (extensive) secondary sourcing and see how it is covered there. --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t care about Bush’s words, you can leave it in since it’s short, you can take it out if it’s not widely covered, I’m fine either way. What I do care about is that we should not be putting Trump’s explanation about “locker room talk” before his actual quotes. I agree with Aquillion in this aspect. starship.paint (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: - you misread my comment sorry, I wasn’t clear. I didn’t say remove “locker room talk”. I said What I meant is: move it down. To clarify - that means from paragraph 2 to paragraph 3, alongside his apology, as part of his response. starship.paint (talk)}

Described is better than defended, but I don’t really care too much. starship.paint (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahhh...that makes sense. (I had to go back and edit out words I inadvertently repeated - one of the hazards of trying to type while making meatballs. All fixed now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

• Seeing the three versions compared like this, I conclude that the one marked "original version" is the best. We don't need to quote the entire conversation in this article; that is for the separate article on the subject, to which we link. In this biography we should just highlight. I would still like to remove the Clinton reference; that seemed beside the point even at the time, but perhaps it is important as an illustration of how he always attacks someone even when apologizing. If consensus is to keep it I'm OK (as summarized in the original version, not the detailed accusations in the other two). -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with MelanieN. The "old version" was just fine, so let's revert to it. A later update with this content (Twenty-two women have publicly accused Trump of sexual misconduct as of June 2019. There were allegations of rape, violence, being kissed and groped without consent, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked women. In 2016, he denied....) seems to be an improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• I agree with the consensus that the "Old text" is the best of the three. Atsme's recent changes have includes some good ones and some bad ones, and I appreciate her shaking things up a bit. As for the disagreement between her and Aquillon, I agree with neither of them. Neither version is prohibited by community standards. I oppose Atsme's additions to the quotes based on conciseness / noteworthiness / editorial judgment, as those additions seemed unnecessarily wordy. R2 (bleep) 19:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct allegations in lead suggestion

My suggested addition to the lead:

Trump has been accused of rape, sexual assault, groping, non-consensual kissing, and other forms of sexual misconduct by at least 22 women before and during his presidency. He has denied all allegations.

Thoughts? This seems like a good compromise lead. It's independently notable, received a significant amount of media attention, and has shown long-term notability. MarvellingLiked (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. All are unproven allegations. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy says we should do it, so "absolutely" yes. That is a textbook example of how it's done properly, including the denial (which was my addition to the policy). Proven, unproven, true or false are all irrelevant in this situation because that is not "unsourced negative" content, so BLP tells us, in detail, how to handle it. NPOV does not allow censorship or whitewashing, especially for Trump. Unlike private persons, BLP offers less protection for such notable people. This is also a very notable part of his reputation.

Follow the policies (WP:LEAD also applies) that require we say something to that effect in the lead, and, because it's got its own section here and full article, it should be mentioned in the lead. All that's missing in that statement is some references, but they are found in the section and in the linked article, so it's good as is. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not in the lead. This material is well covered in the body of the text, but there is so much stuff in this enormous article that not every subsection can go in the lead. We have to be choosy. In this case, I think we need to favor his actual, documented actions (like lying) over widely-reported but entirely unproven accusations. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Not in the lead. The lead in a BLP is a summary of a person's life. Allegations of sexual misconduct which have either been debunked, remain unproven, etc. do not belong in the lead of person's biography - it doesn't matter who that person is, unless of course, it was that behavior that made them notable. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't need a criminal conviction in order to include it in the lead. It's independently notable, received a significant amount of media attention, and has shown long-term notability.MarvellingLiked (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Sigh. If this were any other person on the planet, it would absolutely be in the lead, but I must agree with MelanieN and (partly) Atsme. I disagree with Atsme's rationale, however. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the lead is *that* crowded right now, so I don't see how a brief mention would negatively affect the article. If it was a rambling diatribe about a half dozen allegations of sexual assaults, sure, but I think the allegations have met the criteria for inclusion.MarvellingLiked (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There was an RfC on this previously. The allegations have had had basically no effect on his life so they do not belong in the lede, which exists to summarize only the most salient details about the subject. You can read the discussions linked above at #Highlighted open discussions.LM2000 (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

In summarising this, we should characterise it as "non-consensual sexual activity" rather than "sexual misconduct" or the range of particular accusations. I would recommend Trump has been accused of various non-consensual sexual acts by several women, which he has denied. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Not an improvement. Still not in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I still think it should be in the lead. It's not too long and NPOV, WP:LEAD ("including any prominent controversies"), and PUBLICFIGURE are policies which would require it. None of the arguments against inclusion are impressive in the least. On the contrary, they actually include statements which back up the need to add this to the lead:

• Atsme's arguments are totally non-policy based and contrary to PUBLICFIGURE, NPOV, and LEAD, so don't count at all. Trump's sexual adventures and misconduct are actually part of what makes him so famous and controversial ("that behavior that made them notable"). Even more so because of the fact that his power and team of lawyers help him get away with all kinds of outrageous and controversial behavior. We should not bow to that thinking or pressure. PUBLICFIGURE exists to NOT let people like him get away with it here.
• MelanieN's statements actually support inclusion in the lead: "This material is well covered in the body of the text..." ergo, that's exactly why we must include it in the lead. Anything "well covered in the body", especially when it has its own section and full article, deserves short mention. The length of the lead is not a problem as this is indeed very short.
• Scjessey: "If this were any other person on the planet, it would absolutely be in the lead,..." In fact, because of his notability the bar for inclusion is even lower; WP:PUBLICFIGURE offers much less protection than WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Wikipedia's default TRUMP EXEMPTION practice really needs to stop.

We should include this short mention in the lead. (See also: How to create and manage a good lead section.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• You are twisting my comments and Scjessey's. Yes, if this were any other person on the planet this material might be included. But Trump is not any other person; he is almost unique. Even before he became president was so notable for so many things that his article was longer than that of many presidents. Since becoming president he is the subject of widely reported new material virtually every day, world wide. You claim that "Anything "well covered in the body", especially when it has its own section and full article, deserves short mention." That can't be applied to him. This article has 35 large sections, not counting subsections, and there are 150+ articles about him. There is simply no way to include all that in the lead. We have to pick and choose. And unproven allegations - especially allegations that seem to have had no effect on the course of his life - do not make the cut. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I obviously disagree and see this as yet another application of the de facto TRUMP EXEMPTION policy here where he gets the kid glove treatment, in contrast to how we apply our policies to EVERYONE else. We constantly whitewash and protect him, RS coverage be damned. We must stop acting like an extension of Fox News. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Include in lead. 2600:1702:2340:9470:A95D:E329:8663:1A34 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Note: this IP has made few or no contributions outside this page.

• Include but rape, groping, and non-consensual kissing are all forms of sexual assault. We don't want to perpetuate the myth that behaviors like groping aren't crimes. The language should be shortened even further to: Trump has been accused of sexual assault and misconduct by at least 22 women before and during his presidency. He has denied all allegations. R2 (bleep) 19:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I can support that. It does not diminish the allegations in any way and at the same time stays relatively neutral. Mgasparin (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Do not include. I am not familiar enough with this article at the moment, but I know that "news of the decade" is a prerequisite for including something in the Trump lead. The Guardian basically says this is WP:UNDUE because it does not even have enough media coverage, let alone long-term significance. Prior to this sink of coverage I would probably support inclusion of allegations, though I much more support including the Access Hollywood tape and the Russia investigation to the lead, with the former dominating every day coverage before the election and the latter dominating the coverage every day after the election. I think I understand the motivation to make a false accusation, but the fact there is a photo of them is both convincing evidence and a borderline BLP violation. "Guilt by association" photos are the worst smears in politics and I usually remove them when a person denies knowing the other person. wumbolo ^^^ 22:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Wumbolo: - the photo doesn’t prove Trump raped anyone. It just proved he didn’t tell the truth in his statement of never meeting Carroll before. Trump’s done similar things before. When George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty of a crime, Trump said [55] “Few people knew the young, low level volunteer”, when previously Trump had personally called him an “excellent guy”, and there was a picture of them together as part of his “national security team”. Steve Bannon, 2016 Trump campaign CEO and White House chief strategist, suddenly was described as a “staffer” and “was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books”. starship.paint (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Include, with R2's language, shortened more to make crystal clear that he is not accused of misconduct while president: Trump has been publicly accused of sexual assault and misconduct by at least 22 women soibangla (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Include either top version or R2’s version corrected by Soibangla. One allegation alone might not be important enough, but the coverage by the 22 allegations combined will meet the requirement in my view. starship.paint (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it would be wise to follow Ahrtoodeetoo's suggestion, regardless of its good intentions. Sexual assault is a different crime to rape, but they are both sex crimes. Making a distinction between sexual assault and rape certainly doesn't imply that rape isn't a criminal offence. Sexual misconduct is something that we should avoid saying as it is very ill-defined. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Include one of those versions. They are both good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Do not include - Nothing major has occurred since consensus by RFC to not put in lead, "there are a significant majority of editors here who believe the allegations are not that significant." see Archive 73, consensus #6, recent archive 96 discussion. The language here also adds a bit of an issue -- most RS do not provide counts let alone allude by "at least" to there being more, and all of these are from before the presidency so "before and during his presidency" is misleading. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Do not include in the lead per MelanieN's argument - this article has 35 large sections ("not counting subsections"). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Do not include Again, there was a previous RfC on this and unless we have another one that ends with a stronger consensus in the other direction then we're not going to change anything. There was a similar RfC concerning Woody Allen's lede a few months ago that also decided not to include an allegation against him. The cases are similar in that most of the media coverage of their allegations are followed by questions about why the allegations didn't damage their respective careers. If the allegations aren't having a palpable effect then this isn't the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The allegations are serious and deserve coverage with due weight but the WP:LEAD serves only to give a brief summary on why they're notable. Unlike the likes of Harvey Weinstein or Roger Ailes, whose careers were effectively ended by allegations, a brief summary of Trump can be told without including them.LM2000 (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Do not include - Nothing major has occurred since consensus by RFC to not put in lead - It is this argument from Markbassett that is most compelling for me. Once we get to a point where almost two dozen accusations aren't enough to win a consensus for inclusion in the lead, it's never going to happen. Even if 30 more women came forward with accusations, it still wouldn't be enough. It's important for the body of the article to explore these accusations in the detail they deserve, but the lead should be reserved only for the aspects of Trump's life that are biographically significant. It's appalling to me that these allegations have not really been taken seriously, as they have been with other predators highlighted in the #MeToo era, but Trump has completely escaped consequences thus far and so there's nothing worthy of the lead. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Scjessey, you seem to be buckling under to this odd rule made for Trump that RS coverage is no longer the rule at Wikipedia, but that some elastic rule about "impact" on a life now trumps it. That means that lesser known and less powerful individuals will have their allegations for single misdeeds mentioned in the lead, while the most known and most powerful, because they have become teflon, are treated with deference and their myriad misdeeds, which have received enormous RS coverage, are protected, even when we have the BLP WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy which requires that we not do that. It describes how RS coverage of even unproven allegations is supposed to trump all else in this situation. We really have become an extension of Fox News. This is a sad day when our most important policies don't apply to Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Scjessey, your edit summary said: "This feels wrong, but the lead MUST be reserved for things that actually effect Trump's life.". It feels wrong because it is wrong. It substitutes editorial feelings over RS coverage and article content. Just because this subject, which is large enough for a whole article, now gets a small section coverage here, does not make it a small subject. It still carries the full weight of the whole Sexual allegations article. That is the real weight of this subject, and that real weight determines whether it should be mentioned in the lead or not. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• The Washington Post Editorial Board writes that "America must listen to E. Jean Carroll. It's clear Trump won't."

"As a matter of principle, everyone deserves a presumption of innocence. But in Mr. Trump’s case, that has to be tempered by what we know. We know that Mr. Trump routinely traffics in falsehoods. We know that he has shown contempt for the law in many contexts. And we know that Mr. Trump has boasted about assaulting women.... “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

"Just as we cannot ignore the disdain for the truth and the law that defines this administration simply because we have grown to expect it, we cannot ignore an allegation of sexual assault against the president simply because others have come before it. The United States still has to function with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office, but greeting the grossest abuses as routine veers too close to treating them as acceptable. At the least, the country must do for Ms. Carroll what the president will not: Listen to her."

It appears that Wikipedia won't listen to her either. Wikipedia has chosen Trump's side of the matter by using an elastic and very subjective idea, not by respective the massive RS coverage over the years. The RS are not dropping the ball and ignoring her, but we are ignoring their massive coverage of this whole topic of his sexual controversies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• @BullRangifer: I'm not "buckling" or making up any new rule. Reliable sources are such that inclusion in the article is absolutely warranted and necessary. But that does not, in my opinion, extend to the lead, which is already longer than it really should be. While the lead is meant to fairly summarize the body of the article that follows it, there's no way we can summarize so many sections. Cuts must be made, so I think not having something which has (thus far) had no effect on Trump's life is reasonable. Obviously that may change, but there's certainly nothing to suggest enough has changed since the last RfC to overturn the existing consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• You sadly seem to be right about no change to wikipedian's opinions since the RfC, a result which ignored policy. We still ignore policy and protect Trump, RS be damned, and my opinion isn't swaying anyone, so I'll back off. I still think we are ignoring policy and acting like Fox News. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I find it disgusting that this issue is left out of the lead, because it feels like we are ignoring the poor women Trump has allegedly assaulted; however, the article is specifically about Trump and what we know about him, and there's currently nothing to say he's been impacted by any of these allegations. It sucks, but there it is. Incidentally, I removed the bullets deliberately. Your restoration makes the thread look like a mess. I don't really care, so I'm not going to mess with it again. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Include This is not a single instance but many that span decades. There are multiply references for these and seem to be a major part of his history now. ContentEditman (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Do not include In interviews the accuser is already reciting different scenarios. In one she claims he pinned her against a wall and in another he pushed her to the ground. I reiterate that accusations of such offenses should not be taken lightly but I find her claims to be uncompelling based on the inability to recollect with more precision the time this happened as well as the flippant alterations to her storyline.--MONGO (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you should avoid posting your personal opinions about the validity of statements by a living person in a rape accusation. O3000 (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a straw man. The proposal doesn't pass judgment on the allegations, nor does it even mention E. Jean Carroll's accusation. This proposal is about the 22 accusations and their cumulative significance, regardless of whether they're true or false. R2 (bleep) 16:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Mueller

Off-topic. This article isn't about Mueller
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Robert Mueller is going public..it should be in the article. 2600:1702:2340:9470:941A:E7EC:5BF6:66A9 (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Robert Mueller to testify publicly to Congress on July 17 -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Not now, maybe not ever. Only if it is BLP impact. (Not everything is suitable for here.) At the least, not until there are actual events. Even then give it at least a 48 hour waiting period so there are some actual coverage views and WEIGHT about things. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC) This article is not about Mueller. Nor is it about the Mueller Report, the Mueller investigation, or Russian interference. R2 (bleep) 04:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)