Talk:Donald Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Former good article nomineeDonald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 18, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
December 2, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Highlighted open discussions[edit]

None.

Current consensus[edit]

NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per Remedy instructions and exemptions, above. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]], item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

1. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (link 1, link 2, link 3) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

2. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City" in the infobox. No state or country. (link 1, link 2)

3. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (link)

4. 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. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

5. Use Donald Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (currently the March 2018 edition, $3.1B/766th/248th), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link 1) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be $3.1 billion. (link 2, link 3)

6. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (link 1, link 2)

7. Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (link 1, link 2, wording shortened per link 3, upheld with link 4)

8. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (link)

9. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (link)

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. (link 1, link 2)

11. 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." (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (link)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 days, manual archival is allowed for closed discussions after 24 hours. (link)

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

15. 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 has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense.[1] No new changes should be applied without debate. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (link 5) (cancelled by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (link) (cancelled by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. 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}}. See link 1, link 2, link 3 and link 4 for substance; link 5 and link 6 for minor changes. Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018.

18. The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "The Wharton School (B.S.inEcon.)", does not mention Fordham University. (link 1, link 2)

19. Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons, it was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (link 1 for replacement, link 2, link 3, link 4 for background) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 October 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (link 1, link 2)

21. Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (link 1, link 2)

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. (link)

23. 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. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5) Wording updated on 6 July 2018 (link 6) and 23 September 2018 (link 7).

24. Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (link) (superseded by #30 since 16 August 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (link 1, link 2)

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". (link)

27. State that Trump "falsely claimed" that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama "birther" rumors. (link 1, link 2)

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. (link 1, link 2)

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

30. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist." (link 1, link 2)

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

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (link 1, link 2)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (link)

Protection[edit]

How come it took them so long to add full protection to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernova971 (talkcontribs) 04:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It is only full protected due to an on-going issue, which the above sections cover. It will return to ECP eventually. -- ferret (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I am glad it is fully protected I hope they keep it protected until he leaves office because I think the full protection is a good idea and should have happened back in 2016 Abote2 (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Everything needs to be done differently for Trump. Normal rules do not apply. Please keep the article fully protected. If those in charge can listen. Eschoryii (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Many experienced editors involved with this article, past or present, feel that there are already too many impediments to editing here, with the editing restrictions. Requiring an admin for every edit? Throwing away WP:BOLD? Not going to happen. If existing policies and the editing restrictions are enforced, there is no need for long-term full protection here, and that is borne out by the past three years of the article's history (for which you weren't present). ―Mandruss  00:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

As Ferret said: the full protection is TEMPORARY to deal with a severe vandalism problem. There is absolutely no intention to full-protect the article permanently. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank goodness. I hope you guys can resolve the issue and step it down soon. Thanks for the work addressing it. A2soup (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Motion to lift full protection, return to ECP[edit]

It's been ten days since full protection was applied, which is starting to harm editors' capacity to update the contents. There will always be vandalism; the myriad watchful eyes on this article can likely deal with it in a timely manner. Unless admins can demonstrate a compelling and current reason to keep the article locked, I would request an immediate return to longstanding WP:ECP protection. @Anarchyte, Awilley, Bellezzasolo, Bradv, DannyS712, Enigmaman, Favonian, GreenC, Mandruss, MelanieN, MrX, MusikAnimal, Power~enwiki, Ritchie333, TheSandDoctor, Winged Blades of Godric, Ymblanter, and Zzuuzz: what's your take? Do we have a handle on compromised accounts yet? — JFG talk 13:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Concur - Admins just need to keep an eye on the article and quickly take care of blocking any compromised accounts. - MrX 🖋 13:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
A quick post at AIV (after a first instance if EC vandalism) could also help if no admins are around here. ~Awilley (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggest one of us replaces the full protection by ex protection within a couple of days without announcing it here, to minimize the risks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Why? Do you think compromised accounts are watching the talk page, but not the actual article? Trying to be sneaky about restoring ECP is a flawed tactic. Just watch the page and block the offenders like we always do. There must be at least 100 admins watching this article.- MrX 🖋 13:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Lift protection - There have not been any new flare ups that I am aware of and if a new one starts it is easy enough to restore the full lock. PackMecEng (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't buy the 'there will always be vandalism argument', or 'it will be dealt with', especially when I've had to personally deal with at least four of the vandals myself and it got plastered all over the Internet. There is currently an extraordinary risk. Just to provide a data point, four accounts were compromised three days ago, and you can guarantee they'll have vandalised this article if they could have. I just want to make clear that any other admin can change the protection as they see fit at any time. Personally, I'd have preferred to wait a few more days as I consider the vandalism to be currently continuing. If there is a different consensus so be it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Because of the situation at hand I still think the admins current plan of action is the best option. In the interm just use edit requests procedure to update the article. In addition to all the admins watching this page plus the admins that watch this I doubt edit requests for this article would go unattended for long periods of time in the interm. Plus if any IPs or other editors try to use the edit request template for joke requests, blank requests, etc. other editors can swiftly close them so the admins only have to focus on the requests that would keep the article up to date until it can go back to ECP. Maybe in cases like this in the future as a last resort we could look into seeing if an article like this could be template protected so template editors could edit it. Similar to the proposal that of where temporarily only interface admins could edit the Main Page. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 14:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually now that I think about it and after I saw the section above (where some mentioned keeping this on full protection indefinitely which I'm against) this most recent situation reminded me of the retired pending changes protection level 2. To be honest here this article would be perfect to bring back PC Level 2 even if this is the only article it is used on. If this article has both ECP + PC Level 2 then it would still allow EC editors to make changes however no edits would "go live" until a reviewer or admin accepts them. This way readers who are not logged in only see the last accepted version of this page and it should also help with assistants like Siri, Google Assistant, etc. to keep the vandals work from appearing there (this is assuming they go based on the last accepted versions of pending protected pages). Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 15:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
That is a brilliant idea, except that PC2 would not have stopped what happened on Thanksgiving. (Then again, now that I think about it, neither does full protection.) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't think anything could have prepared en~Wiki for what happened at Thanksgiving honestly lol. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 15:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Lift protection and bringing back PC2 for this could be an interesting idea. SemiHypercube 15:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
For the love of God, please no Pending Changes protection. ECP protects against fly-by-night vandals, and the 1RR and Consensus Required restrictions are hard enough to administer. PC2 would only make maintenance more difficult by mandating extra scrutiny that is de facto already in place. — JFG talk 23:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think temporary PC2 protection with ECP will make maintenance more difficult all it will do is provide an extra layer in the event a compromised account vandalizes the page it keeps their handywork from being seen by IP readers and virtual assistants. In most cases extended confirmed editors that regularly edit this page most likely have it on their watchlist and look at all edits to ensure compliance with the things you mentioned. It is probably safe to say a decent amount of them are also reviewers. I highly doubt other reviewers that don't edit this page regularly would review the edits on this page if they are not comfortable editing articles under ArbCom sanctions. They would most likely leave it in the review queue until a more experienced editor can review this article except in the case of clear, obvious vandalism. I actually support the admins here and I'm interested to see how their plan works out. However at this time I don't support lowering the protection back to ECP alone with everything that has happened. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Lift Trump is the perfect honey trap to flush out compromised admin accounts so either way it's good. -- GreenC 15:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@GreenC: I have to admit then when I read this, I burst out laughing. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Scjessey: I hope we are not colluding, but anyway it is not disallowed. -- GreenC 20:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • File with lifting per OP. ~Awilley (talk)
  • Oppose unprotecting - there are no urgent changes to be made to this article, and until we find a solution to the compromised accounts problem, the vandalism will very likely continue. L293D ( • ) 15:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the compromised accounts issue will take a bit longer to sort out here and the article shouldn't stay fully protected until that problem is sorted. However I'm opposed to reducing protection at this critical time especially when we are still in the news. I think for this article only resurrecting PC2 and applying ECP+PC2 protection would be a good alternative solution. IMO this is what PC2 was technically designed for to be the middle ground between ECP and FP and it could help us in two areas. Keep vandals work from appearing to readers who are not logged in and in theory should keep their work away from Siri, Google Assistant, etc. If someone vandalizes the article while it has ECP+PC2 protection they can be reported and dealt with by admins. This also allows good EC users to continue to contribute to the article just as they always have before. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 15:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The short term solution is to block on sight and revert. The long term solution is being worked on by WMF, as far as I know.- MrX 🖋 16:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Lift I don't think its still needed --DannyS712 (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I have been thinking about unilaterally lifting the full protection and restoring the EC protection, sometime soon. But we should not decide when to do that via a talk page discussion, because I think we can be sure that the troll watches these discussions; no point in telling him when he can resume his attacks. (It's always possible that he has lost interest and taken his mischief elsewhere, but I wouldn't count on it. Zzuuzz's recent experience suggests the opposite.) It has been understood all along that the full protection is temporary and that EC protection will be restored eventually. This is an article that needs to be accessible to responsible editors. But I think the timing of that restoration should not be a matter of public discussion. Any admin can do it, without needing permission or discussion. There are several of us who have been involved in these decisions, but any admin could also take the action unilaterally, whenever they think the time is ripe. It might be a good idea to privately alert those of us who have been most deeply involved (such as Zzuuzz and myself) that you are doing it. The above is basically a long version of what Ymblanter said. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Would they not see the protection change on their watch list or perhaps see other people editing the article. I am not sure getting community input on the subject is a bad thing. PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I could be wrong but I think what the admins are trying to do here is not give the troll a lot of leeway here. Like I mentioned I support them randomly switching protection back unannounced its a good tactic. Some trolls are dedicated and will watch talk pages or even the protection icon on the main page for the date the protection goes away and will plan accordingly. WP:VG actually had a situation where this happened earlier this year where trolls planned an attack because they knew when protection on a certain page would end. Switching the protection at a random, unannounced time puts more work on said troll in that they would have to keep up with this page almost 24/7 to perform instant vandalism to the page and hopefully they give up. So I can see the reasoning as to why MelanieN and the others are doing this. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 16:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Eh if I were a troll I would just edit as normal on my main account until I see the protection change on my watch list and then get to work. This isn't 3D space chess, when it changes they will see it and do what they do. Could it delay it a few hours? Sure probably, does that really matter though? PackMecEng (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
RE: does that really matter though? Please see the "mentioned by media organizations" section above. Even though the images were reverted and revdel'ed within minutes, the vandalism propagated on the internet through Google and Siri. It was seen by many people and resulted in a lot of media reporting that gave Wikipedia a black eye. Yes, it really matters. It is important to prevent this from happening again if we possibly can. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Does that really matter, was in reference to when the protection ends... Not if the vandalism matters. Of course vandalism matters, my argument above is it not making a difference when that ends. Since when it ends has no effect on if vandalism happens. Hope that clears it up for you. PackMecEng (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Lift if they can read a talk page, they can read a protection log. No need to do it immediately, but this should be lift-able this week, unless an admin or somebody from the WMF is going to invoke WP:BEANS and claim private information that justifies not lifting it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose unprotection I consider the compromised accounts 'crisis' to be ongoing, and as mentioned in the past, I do not see why people cannot use the edit-protected request format. Given the high profile nature of this page, I'd prefer changes get consensus before the edit is made. Enigmamsg 21:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Some of this strategizing seems like pointless overthink. The easiest and most reliable way to see if protection is still in place? Try an edit. No matter what anybody does, a dedicated vandal can simply try an edit once a day with their morning coffee. Either it works or it doesn't; no need to look at this page, protection log, or watchlist. It isn't like we're going to lift protection for a 5-minute window and they need to know when that will be—once opened, the door tends to stay open for some time. If they're reading this page it's because they enjoy the attention, not because they seek intel.
    But otherwise, I don't know what to do here—that's why admins get the big bucks. ―Mandruss  21:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait a bit longer - as long as there's still an issue with compromised accounts, we do not need such a highly trafficked page being opened up for attack. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but it'd be good if this discussion could also include the alternative infobox. Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Just my opinion but with everything that has been going on lately I would recommend placing the alternate infobox under template protection for the time being. If there is something that needs to be updated to the alternate infobox the edit request process would be sufficient. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not all that sure that the alternate infobox is going to prevent our problem. I have been looking into a possible better solution. Sorry to be so vague. More info later. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible Trump - Khashoggi connection?[edit]

FWIW - not sure - but is an apparent connection between Donald Trump and a Khashoggi[1] - relevant to the article? - or not? - seems Donald Trump bought a Super Yacht, originally owned by Adnan Khashoggi, uncle of Jamal Khashoggi,[2] in the 1980s[1] - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit but not sure there is a place for it at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
This is known as original research. Interesting, but we can't even start to consider it without a reputable publisher making the connection first. R2 (bleep) 19:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Taylor, John (July 28, 2017). "Trump Princess: Inside Donald Trump's lavish 86m superyacht". Boat International Media. Retrieved December 5, 2018.
  2. ^ Staff (October 19, 2018). "Who is Jamal Khashoggi?". VOA. Retrieved December 5, 2018.

Protected edit request on 5 December 2018[edit]

Add this to page to match other presidential pages

עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I do see this kind of navbox at the bottom of other presidential articles. It seems kind of worthless to me but apparently it is the practice here. Does someone want to add it? Or agree to add it once the normal EC protection is restored? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken that was one of the things removed because we kept running into the limit for template space or something. Each time we did, it broke one or two of the last templates in the article, and there was a reluctance to use templates for new citations because it would aggravate the problem. Things are much improved now that we don't have to worry about such things. Plus, there's currently a discussion at Village Pump about whether we need those boxes anywhere. ―Mandruss  21:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
FWIW I feel these succession boxes are mostly useless. The presidential line of succession is already in the main infobox, and the previous nominee of the Republican party is readily available when viewing the article about the primaries. That person is also unrelated to Trump, except that he made a fierce speech against him. As for the President being first in diplomatic order, that is a factoid true of any U.S. President, hence malplaced at the Trump article. — JFG talk 02:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I only edit requested it here because of the edit restrictions now that that has been lifted I'm going to add it in there is no reason he shouldn't have one if all presidents and most politicians have one if there ends up being consensus to remove all succession boxes from all pages then it can be removed עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And I'm going to revert you because the question is currently 2-to-1 for omit (MelanieN is straddling the fence). Sorry. ―Mandruss  00:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Mandruss, is there really a technical problem with including it? We do keep being reminded how massive this article is. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@MelanieN: A technical problem? Perhaps not at this time. I don't know of a way to determine how close we are to the template space limit until we exceed it. I'm weighing the total upside against the total downside, the downside includes more than the immediate possible technical issue, and the scale is tipping slightly in the omit direction for me. As JFG said, I feel these succession boxes are mostly useless. That it's included in other articles weighs very little for me, absent a community-level discussion and consensus that it should be included in all presidents' articles. To my mind, that kind of consistency argument kills organic evolution of the encyclopedia. ―Mandruss  01:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to come down on the side of "leave it out". IMO it adds nothing to the article, and the article has survived just fine without it for nearly two years. At least let's wait until there is some kind of resolution of the question elsewhere. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

that's not true it was unilaterally deleted in march 2018 and why should this be the only presidents page to not have it עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the others that should be left out of this article, and possibly other president articles. It doesn't add much of value and it's purpose is unclear.- MrX 🖋 14:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
so when removal is decided about all succession boxes it should be removed before that happens it should be on this page consistent with like pages עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, so we've done without it for nine months. Until now, nobody missed it. And it is under debate elsewhere whether such sections contribute any value. I understand your reasoning and you are clearly passionate about this, but we work by consensus, and so far you don't seem to have convinced anyone to add it at this time. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The most recent prior discussions are here and here, and Galobtter's big-fix edit is here. While the {{Navboxes}} template that Galobtter removed is back in the article now, it contains a lot less than he removed, so we probably don't have a pressing technical problem at this time.
Re the consistency argument, not many presidents' articles have file sizes 60% larger than the average from Nixon to Obama, 110% larger than FDR (ie more than double), and 91% larger than Lincoln. This is another great example of why blind and simplistic consistency arguments should generally be avoided. ―Mandruss  02:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
still a bs argument as consensus was never gotten to remove the succession box it was removed unilaterally so until someone gets consensus from more than 5 users to remove it it should be put back in and this page is less than 10% bigger than obamas עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

George Bush funeral[edit]

It should be noted that every living president was cordial to Trump at Bush funeral except for the Clintons. They wouldn't make eye contact or shake hands. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Noted. ―Mandruss  08:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Runs into WP:WEIGHT issues. And honestly? Trump isn't really deserving of such cordiality, so I can't blame the Clintons for ignoring him. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
While rude it is not noteworthy and I do not see it having a place in any article at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
"Not gonna do it." [2] O3000 (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Rudely refusing to shake hands? Gosh, is my eyesight failing me?? Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Sources are easy.[3][4] But again I do not think it is particularly noteworthy from any angle. PackMecEng (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems a relatively small trivia du jour. Wait a couple days and see if any further WEIGHT develops. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    Surely you jest. WP:WEIGHT has its limits, and I would vigorously oppose such content even if the entire effing media world talked about nothing but this for weeks. I'm astounded anybody took the time to write a serious response here. Anyway, Trump was a passive actor here, so this is the wrong article. Bill Clinton wouldn't make eye contact or shake hands, AND Hillary Clinton wouldn't make eye contact or shake hands. If Wikipedia claims to be neutral this MUST BE REPORTED!! </sarcasm>Mandruss  00:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
IMO none of this NOTNEWS gossip (of which there is a lot more: gasp! He and Melania didn't recite the creed or sing the hymns![5][6] ) belongs in this biography article anywhere on Wikipedia. Like the Doc said. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
User:MelanieN, User:Mandruss - oh, I’m fairly serious about ‘wait a few days and see what WEIGHT’ being my common response whenever yet another flap du jour occurs, because they do occur, and I can either argue my view of trivial NOTDIARY with editors who proclaim its important and will affect things or I can point at TOOSOON and WEIGHT and letting events show which it is, which seems more polite a response and policy, plus NOTNEWS used for the ‘does not need to be in WP the same day’, and ‘this seems more for the Presidency article than his BLP’. (But events have surprised me before ... for example, the birthright removal mention seemed a onetime oops or just him trolling the opposition, but the topic persisted.) So while I think this is trivia, I’m serious about the policy being “we’ll see” even if that sounds link my Mums euphemism for no. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
If any of this turned into a HUGE issue and was still being talked about by multiple sources in a week, I agree I would have to rethink my opinion. IMO that isn't going to happen, but I've been wrong before. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm I don't think any of this belongs anywhere on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • If we had an entire article dedicated to the George W. Bush funeral alone and nothing else, this might warrant a sentence somewhere in it; but it's extremely WP:UNDUE for his personal article. Where would we even put it? --Aquillion (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush does exist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the user above, what is trying to be added to this page does not serve any purpose to the page itself. Talking about how Trump was seen at someone else's funeral is something that should be on a personal page on its own. The Clintons refusing to shake hands and refuse eye contact could only be something that the media is trying to blow up, it is hard to look at these issues especially when it has been proven that different media sources portray Trump in differnt ways. I am sure we will be hearing more about this as a story so I agree with the statemtn above that we should wait on it before any other developments. ((User:Jacklg)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelog1234 (talkcontribs) 02:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggested additions to head[edit]

-"Trump's foreign policy has been described as unilateralist and interventionist, drawing the United States closer to Saudi Arabia and Israel."

-"Trump repealed environmental protections and/or regulations intended to address anthropogenic climate change such as the Clean Power Plan and withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation."

-Add Michael Cohen's and federal prosecutors allegation that Trump committed multiple felonies.

This is partially taken from Presidency of Donald Trump, but I felt they should be added here. ZiplineWhy (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. About the first two: Before we can add these things to the lead section they have to be spelled out in the article, with sources. Are they? About the last: I noticed that you added the claim about him committing felonies to the Presidency article lead, but I removed it. Cohen did not say that in those words, and the federal prosecutors quoted in your source are nowhere near strong enough evidence to accuse a person, in his biography, of committing felonies. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
User:ZiplineWhy Not here. These seem too remote for BLP. The BLP lead identifies highlight major events of life, so withdrawal from Paris Agreement is fine and already there, but the rest is non-events getting into too long and vague narration. Feels a bit WP:OFFTOPIC for here, would be better suited to Presidency article. p.s. I see Rep. Lieu allege two felonies for the hush money, and Cohens lawyer Lanny Davis also said so for the same events. Should say “two” wherever for that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm completely new here but I decided to take a look because my coworker told me there are all these Trump defenders trying to keep all the felony news stuff out of the article and it's lead section. SUrprisngly he was right. The presidency is Trump's most significant event in his life, and the current latest news about his possible felonies and impeachment are an important counter-weight. The article right now, gives the most credence to the idea that Mueller is on a "witch hunt." I don't pretend to understand how Wikipedia policy works, but surely we are commiting a journalistic malpractice here. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
"Felony news stuff" and crystal-balling about possible impeachment isn't going to make it. Stick to well-sourced facts and maybe there's a chance of representing what's going on. You'll still have to fight the defenders who believe Mueller is on a witch hunt, but at least there might be a chance. Dicklyon (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
"Prosecutors Say Trump Directed Illegal Payments During Campaign" [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/nyregion/michael-cohen-sentence.html

] PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Individual 1?[edit]

FYI, there's currently a redirection discussion here concerning what to do about the term Individual-1. At present, we have no explanation of the rationale for using this designation in legal circles. It seems like a properly-sourced sentence or two somewhere in this article would help. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems a bad idea ... a procedural trivia not good thing to make a redirect for, and a search would otherwise find instances without that. It’s likely just SOP practice to number people testified on, so many other cases would have a different meaning of “individual 1”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but no other people get covered so much as "Individual 1". In fact, this has become so widely covered we really should mention it in the article:
"Manafort, Cohen, and Individual 1 Are in Grave Danger" [7]
"The utterly lawless ‘Individual-1’" [8]
"Individual-1' memes are everywhere after 'substantial' prison time suggested for Cohen" [9]
"The walls are closing in on ‘individual #1’" [10]
"Prosecutors: Cohen committed crimes at the direction of ‘Individual-1’ aka Trump" [11]
"President ‘Individual-1’ Trump Hasn’t A Clue, But Twitter Wits Aim to School Him" [12]
"Trump, 'Individual 1,' is newly cast as center of special counsel's probe" [13]
And so on and so forth. Come on. I know, that you know, how to use google. So just type "Individual 1" into that search bar and let me know if someone OTHER THAN Trump, from all these "many other cases" pops up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm dubious that a redirect would be necessary, but I think we could probably slip in a parenthetical aside somewhere in the special prosecutor section if necessary, eg. when talking about the legal documents. I suppose I can see it adding something in terms of someone coming her wondering why people keep referring to Trump as "individual 1". I wouldn't give it any more than a single mention of eg. "Trump, referred to as Individual 1 in these filings..." when discussing the court filings in question, though. --Aquillion (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that would be a good wording and a good way to handle it. There is no mystery about who Individual-1 is; one of the documents says he was later elected president. By the way the documents, and most sources quoting them, use a hyphen: Individual-1. Not a space and not a # sign. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Where in the article do we have information about his connection to the recent guilty pleas and filings? Or haven't we mentioned it yet? Offhand I couldn't find it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
This seems just the viral flap du jour - no need or value to making a redirect, does not fit reasons in guide WP:POFR, suits reasons to delete WP:R#DELETE. We really need a 48 hour waiting period to prevent folks dumping their morning feed in here and starting these Chinese fire drills. Seems possible vandalism/snark to elevate something derogatory, sort of like making a redirect for “small hands” would be. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Individual 1 isn't derogatory, it's the name Trump is referred to in the court filings. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe we never put anything in the article about the convictions of Manafort (with Trump hinting at a pardon) or Cohen (with Trump named as the person who told Cohen to break the law). We have it now. The Cohen paragraph identifies Individual-1 as Trump. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Disinformation[edit]

A new article from Glenn Kessler (of The Washington Post's The Fact Checker) says that on at least 14 occasions Trump has made "a deliberate effort to replace the truth with his own, far more favorable, version of it" and has thereby effectively engaged in disinformation. This seems like a very significant conclusion coming from a very reliable and prominent source, worthy of inclusion here in my view. Discuss. R2 (bleep) 18:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Possibly. I see that several other reliable sources have taken notice of the article. I wonder how long it will be before someone creates the redirect Bottomless Pinocchio.18:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talkcontribs)
isn't that just his opinion עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
no - MrX 🖋 18:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
yes, an opinion piece and/or his personal analysis summary. In other words, not something open for others to verify. An example of why that site is not strictly a "Fact Check". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not an "opinion" piece. In fact, it prominently says "Analysis" at the top and "interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data, as well as anticipating how events might unfold based on past events". Toodles.- MrX 🖋 21:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it’s an “opinion” piece when it’s expressing his personal views and/or WP:PRIMARY “analysis”. Those proclamations that it is “interpreting” the news and his “predictions” only seems to add to the evidence. His summary of what he asserts is his (private) analysis that is not visible, uses hyperbolic wording, makes up terms, misuses existing technical terminology is not him reporting on an outside event - it is just him stating his opinions. While I was interested that he seems counting each repetition as a separate ‘false’ item, the point is this term disinformation is just a hyperbolic or artistic bit here that does not match that terminology use or experts. But it doesn’t matter as this is just one article writer rant of no particular note or BLP impact, so fails WEIGHT and OFFTOPIC. I also think this sort of was previously covered in discussions about having the article say “false”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Not really seeing how, where, or why we would add this to this article? Seems basically already covered by what is in there now. PackMecEng (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
There's a big difference between disinformation and false statements (misinformation). R2 (bleep) 19:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Eh, largely seems like semantics. PackMecEng (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
No offense but that's an extremely ignorant statement. I'd suggest you read a John Le Carre novel or two, or talk to anyone in the intelligence community. R2 (bleep) 19:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Ha, sure thing Face-wink.svg But seriously, in this situation they are equivalent enough to not make a notable difference between the two. PackMecEng (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. It's even more significant than a source of this caliber saying Trump lied. We're talking about systematic lies here. "Disinformation" is translation of a Russian word and is historically closely tied to Soviet propaganda programs. The fact that Glenn Kessler would be dropping the d-bomb is highly significant. The "bottomless pinocchio" thing is already receiving substantial media attention. R2 (bleep) 19:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I think you need a new foil hat. PackMecEng (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Ha ha the intelligence community is known as spooks, not kooks. You need to read up. R2 (bleep) 19:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Been there done that, I'm good thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
User:PackMecEng There is a difference between Disinformation and Misinformation, and dismediation and so forth. WP went thru the flavors repeatedly in discussions for the label 'false'. Kessler is incorrectly using the term for where Trump said the same thing repeatedly and its something he criticizes. Most politicians would call that "staying on message" or "the spin", others might call it stable beliefs (however misguided they might be) -- but Kessler decided to call them disinformation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted Soibangla's addition here of the term the Bottomless Pinocchio, and object to any re-addition without clear consensus. I feel it's clearly not important enough to include here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a pretty stunning revelation, although not a surprising one. May I ask what would convince you that it should be added? - MrX 🖋 19:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
As long as the entirety of the story is "man with newspaper column invents new word for 'liar'" and nothing else, there is literally nothing (apart from an RFC that demonstrates consensus otherwise) that will cause me to support including this. If something relevant to Trump happens as a result, I'd reconsider. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
That WaPo found a need to create a new category suggests DUEness. O3000 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not a column. It's been edited and has the reputational backing of the Washington Post behind it. The Fact Checker has crack research team behind it and is about as reliable as it comes. R2 (bleep) 19:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I am going to dig in my heels here. This is trivia that certainly shouldn't be in this article; it should be in Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. We don't mention "Drumpf" here, we don't use the word "liar" in the article, there's no conceivable argument that will convince me based on the current information. This is the Post inventing a term of its own accord, it's not "covering" any event that has happened. They do not even claim that the term "Bottomless Pinocchio" is the product of research; they simply invented it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The noteworthy fact is not the novel name "Bottomless Pinocchio". It's that Trump has apparently plumbed new lows in the extent and brazenness of his lying.- MrX 🖋 20:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Ahrtoodeetoo Don't be silly. (There really needs to be a 48 hour waiting period to stop just pasting whatever is on their feeds that morning.) Obviously a single-source opinion piece from Kessler does not merit a mention. Both not DUE without being prominently covered by numerous secondary sources and response from alternatives and President Trump, and OFFTOPIC since it lacks BLP significance of having been a Trump life choice or having made an enduring impact his life. It obviously has nothing like the significance of a single report from Mueller for example. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You want additional reliable secondary sources? Here are some that have come out already: [14][15][16][17][18] (But obviously I'm being silly... Silly stupid droid, you really need to pipe down for 48 hours.) R2 (bleep) 21:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
how is it a secondary source if all it does is reference the original source עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand. They're all secondary sources, including the original Washington Post piece. They're talking about Trump's statements. I offered those links because Markbassett said we only have one source so we doesn't have enough media coverage to merit inclusion. No, we have at least 6 media outlets that have decided the subject is significant enough to publish on it. And that's just in the few hours since the Washington Post piece was published. R2 (bleep) 22:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
no you have 5 media outlets linking to a 6th who decided to call those statement disinformation עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I just accidentally bumped into this. I'm currently debating the same thing, so here's my opinion. A secondary source is perfectly legal to put only a quote from the primary source. By doing this it is interpreting the primary source, since we can expect that this being a secondary source , it would provide additional explanation if the quote from the primary source is misleading in any way. I didn't read the matter that is being discussed so I'm not taking anyones side on this.Bilseric (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You guys no one is proposing adding any content based on primary sources. We're talking about adding content about Trump, citing a Washington Post article and/or any of the myriad other news articles that have been or will be published on the subject. The Washington Post article is not a primary source any more than any other newspaper article, either under our guidelines or under standard usage of the term. It is not an original material close to an event, it is not an account written by someone who was directly involved, it is not an insider's view of Trump's statements. We can decide to include in-text attribution if we wish, but that wouldn't magically transform an edited news article into a primary source. AmYisroelChai, I don't understand why you think a source somehow stops being a secondary source as soon as it references another source, or why it even matters. R2 (bleep) 22:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The use of the new rating "bottomless Pinnichio" by a single fact-checker is not in itself significant enough to warrant a mention on the article, regardless of whether other news outlets consider the adoption of said rating by that single fact-checker to be newsworthy. This belongs on Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. --Hyperinsomniac (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't suggest that we refer to bottomless Pinocchios, which don't think would be the appropriate emphasis for Trump's biography. We can draw from the source without referring to bottomless Pinocchios. That's why I highlighted certain language from the source that I thought was more significant. R2 (bleep) 01:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I think the main takeaway is that we have multiple reliable sources acknowledging that Trump is not just making false statements. They are saying he is deliberately and blatantly lying to deceive the American people in order to gain a political advantage. Moreover, he is doing so on a level so astonishing it no longer fits within a fact-checker's previously defined rating system. From an article standpoint, it means we can (at the very least) consider reassessing the weakness of "many of his public statements were controversial or false" in describing this new level of mendacity. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Who, besides the Washington Post, has used the term "disinformation"? As for "bottomless pinocchio", that is not worth a mention. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Here are some examples of other media outlets that have reported on this development and specifically referenced The Washington Post's description of Trump's falsehoods as disinformation: Washington Examiner, Columbia Journalism Review, The Hill, The Hill (again), The Fiscal Times, Arkansas Times, SFGate, NBC 9 Denver. R2 (bleep) 16:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The Washington Examiner, the second The Hill, Arkansas Times, and NBC 9 Denver are straight no sources. The Columbia Journalism Review is just a list of stories of the week and even put disinformation in quotes. The Hill does the same, mentioning it once and again in quotes to keep it out of their voice. Same again with Fiscal Times and SF Gate. PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is. I don't think anyone is suggesting we cite those sources, nor do I think anyone is disputing the reliability of the Washington Post source. I think MelanieN just wanted to know the amount of media attention the disinformation bit is receiving. R2 (bleep) 18:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. These are not the heavy hitters among sources, and most of them make more of a deal out of "bottomless pinocchio" while mentioning disinformation only in passing, and mostly just in the WP's voice. IMO this should be in the "Veracity" article but not here. Not until it becomes a more widely used term to describe his approach. (This is a biography. Just as we have avoided using the terms "lie" and "liar", I think we would need much stronger sourcing to describe his use of language as comparable to that of the Soviet Union.) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Are you disputing the reliability of the Washington Post source, or the significance of the development? If you're disputing the significance of the development, as I believe you are, then whether the other sources are adopting "disinformation" in their own voice should be irrelevant. Put into policy terms, even if you view "disinformation" more as an unsubstantiated allegation by the Post than as a verifiable fact, then this is an allegation about the public figure that's been published by multiple reliable third-party sources. R2 (bleep) 18:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
My point was basically what MelanieN laid out. That the sources you list supporting it are not good for supporting disinformation. PackMecEng (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't include this. Also, editors here who have an obvious bias and dislike for the President should be discounted accordingly. --Malerooster (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
How is this constructive? Please focus on the merits rather than the ad hominems. R2 (bleep) 18:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ahrtoodeetoo|R2, By giving my opinion that's how. Also, try not to use words like "ad hominems" when you don't understand what they mean. --Malerooster (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the primary objections here are about the terms "bottomless pinocchio" and "disinformation." So would this language be acceptable?

In December 2018 The Washington Post fact-checker created a new category of falsehoods to represent three- or four-Pinocchio falsehoods that an individual has repeated more than twenty times. The paper found that Trump was the only current elected official whose statements met this criterion, with fourteen qualifying statements.

soibangla (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It's better than nothing, but ugh. I'd only accept it if there was no other alternative the consensus could accept. It focuses too heavily on statistics and media behavior and totally sidesteps the source's main point. R2 (bleep) 19:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Make that “Kessler has slow news day, invents new term”... really nothing happened here, this is not a scholarly study by disinformation experts, it is just hyperbolic labels in an opinion piece of no note or BLP impact. Not DUE including and not in BLP topic. People really should stop casually posting their mornings feed and starting these things. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Nah, it's a legitimate effort to report what has heretofore been lacking in factchecking: the persistent repetition of falsehoods long after they have been repeatedly and decisively debunked. soibangla (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Markbassett, please stop personalizing the discussion. R2 (bleep) 19:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Kind of not possible to avoid naming Kessler when asserting this is an Opinion piece. Inventing his own term endless Pinocchios or making ‘reputation=disinformation effort’ out of President Trump having the same complaint with Mueller he reports 30 times seems obvious technically incorrect dramatic flair. (The ‘even after fact checkers say otherwise’ seems just a bit of hubris or self aggrandising on top.) It’s not like anything changed to suddenly make the ‘stay on message’ change so ‘the position is the same’ just got some dramatic relabelling. Though I actually have no idea if it was a slow news day that he came up with this. If you mean the mention of there needs to be a 48 hour waiting period and folks stop casually posting their mornings feed and starting a Chinese fire drill, that’s something I have said elsewhere before against TOOSOON and this is another instance of it. Though I actually have no idea if it was in your feed, the time between article seen to posted or even published to posted being measured in minutes is a Bad Thing people should stop doing. Just wait a couple days and see how it plays out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, it's an analysis, not an opinion piece. You seem to disagree with it, but we follow reliable sources, not your contrary view. We don't have a 48 hour waiting period. WP:TOOSOON is an essay on article notability.- MrX 🖋 13:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, Opinion piece is the nature of this piece. Self-invented dramatic terms are not open to having a RS when only the WP:PRIMARY source has them. And a 48 hour waiting period might have saved this and other places where a too-casual short drop of ‘hey how about (link)’ winds up a time sink. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with Markbassett here, they even list their fact checking section as a column.[19] Plus given the way it is written it is hard for a reasonable person to see it as anything but that. PackMecEng (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Talking about the invented term is a smokescreen to prevent this from being in the article. The term is not the key issue here. The salient fact (what should be in the article) is that after a rigorous analysis by a respected fact checker, it has been shown that Trump now lies on such an extraordinary level, beyond anything seen before, that the rating system used is no longer adequate to convey this level of mendacity. This is backed up by the other sources mentioned above as well. It's not the rating itself that's important, but the lying that precipitated the change. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
No smokescreen. No salient facts or analysis other than your own biased opinions. Time to move on. --Malerooster (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Malerooster: With all due respect, it is not my "opinion" (biased or otherwise). Multiple respected media organizations keep a running tab on the vast number of Trump's porky pies. Several editors agree that this is worthy of inclusion, so it is certainly worth discussing. Why are you opposed to discussion? Could this be the problem? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the topic is the Kessler article, and *its* status. Have we gotten past that now (a couple days later) it has demonstrated getting little notice or impact so is not DUE a mention in the BLP ? We can continue discussing the other points of ways it is and isn't an Opinion piece and WP:PRIMARY, but it could get a mention in the Veracity article anyway and none here so is that just an academic point ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I find it fascinating that some consider the edit suitable for the Veracity article (186 page views yesterday) but not for this article (45,180 views yesterday) or the Presidency article (2,861 views yesterday). soibangla (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Not an improvement and undue. PackMecEng (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Page Protection Raise[edit]

Conversation started by sockGalobtter (pingó mió) 11:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think this article needs full protection as it has had a history of vandalism from extended confirmed users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iplayminecraft512 (talkcontribs) 00:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree as some Extended Confirmed Users help add more info to the article. I also disagree as some Extended Confirmed Users revert Vandalism. Emperor Anzong of Song or The Huangdi of Song China (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it needs full protection as well Abote2 (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Media Articles[edit]

On the "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" part at the top, the cracked.com link is broken. I am unsure on how to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.116.189.95 (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Link Fixed; changed to archive Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Seeking some consensus to add this quote[edit]

Hoping to preclude any conflicts, I think this (or a version thereof) should be included on the page, and am seeking support for that. Opinions?

In sentencing the president’s former fixer, federal judge William H. Pauley III said in open court that Trump had directed his then-lawyer to commit a federal felony. This was in some respects a formality, a confirmation of a conclusion that prosecutors and the United States Probation Office had reached last week. But while it might have been a formality, it was important. No one in that courtroom, including the judge, disagreed that Trump directed Cohen to commit crimes.

— Renato Mariotti, "Did Trump Just Move a Step Closer to Unindicted Co-conspirator?", Politico (December 12, 2018)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindenfall (talkcontribs) 22:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

That would be overkill. We already say Cohen testified that he had made the illicit payments at the direction of a candidate for federal office - a reference to Trump and Cohen said that he had made the false statements on behalf of Trump, who was identified as "Individual-1" in the court documents and In their sentencing memo, prosecutors said that Cohen had paid the women for their silence "with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election" and that "he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1”. That’s plenty for this biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

MOS issues[edit]

@UpdateNerd: wishes to decapitalize President of the United States in this bio article & all other US president bio articles, as well their infoboxes. He wishes to do the same with Vice President of the United States at Mike Pence & all other US vice president bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:JOBTITLES, and not all instances; in fact in many cases it needs to be capitalized. The MoS explains that when the President is being referred to as someone's title it is capitalized, as opposed to the office of president where it is lower case, except when the latter is the subject. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Prior discussions here in January and in November. Related open RfC here. As seen in the January discussion, the consistency argument, combined with personal-opinion I just don't like it arguments, will forever prevent a local change here. MoS (JOBTITLES) alone is not sufficient in this case; you will also need a community consensus to follow MoS. Can't imagine how it's useful to raise this locally, yet again. But sure, I'll restate my support for JOBTITLES compliance anyway. If this amounts to anything, we'll add it to the list of related discussions. ―Mandruss  02:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)