Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 77

This is an archive of past discussions about Donald Trump. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 70

←

Archive 75

Previous experience wikilink

I disagree with the consensus item [8]'s decision to wikilink "prior military or government service" to "List of Presidents of the United States by previous experience" as that violates WP:EGG, in my opinion. The discussion that brought us consensus item [8] was not an RFC and not very strong in this aspect, so maybe we can avoid an RFC here, which I don't know how to set-up. However, if we decide to keep a link, but not as it is currently, we probably do need an RFC to come up with a rewrite. wumbolo ^^^ 13:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Have a closer look at the article's links. It's teeming with eggs worse than that one. I'm not saying that's a reason not to improve any eggs, but it's worth noting.
I agree that that part of the consensus is very weak, and its close statement didn't even include the link. The 15 months' worth of de facto consensus is far stronger in my opinion, considering the link's high visibility in the lead.
We don't need an RfC for a wikilink, that would be process overkill.
What change do you propose? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: considering we are linking to a list, linking "first..." seems fine. wumbolo ^^^ 14:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. We have very different interpretations of MOS:EGG. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that it violates WP:EGG. Trump's lack of "prior military or government service" is still considered "previous experience" that can be ranked. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: how about adding "without" to the wikilink then? wumbolo ^^^ 14:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I don't really have a problem with doing that, but then again I don't have a problem with the way it is now. I don't want to see the lede become a wall of blue text, so I'm generally not in favor of unnecessary extensions of a blue link. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I propose unlinking if the text remains the same. I was thinking about putting the link into the first paragraph, but there we have "entering politics" instead of "becoming POTUS". In the current sentence, the link has no place as: that article talks about POTUSes' previous occupations in general, and mentions Trump in only one sentence. wumbolo ^^^ 14:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
That sentence is one of the worst MOS:EGG offenders in the article, with links like wealthiest and the fifth. And it's right up front in the lead, the part read by almost all readers. In violation of WP:LEAD, I think the only part of the sentence that actually summarizes article content is "the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote". In my opinion that should be fixed, allowing for a separate sentence for each point below the lead, thereby making it easier to avoid eggs there, and the links should be removed from the sentence in the lead. If that's too much to consider, you can count me as an abstain in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that "the wealthiest" is summarized under Donald Trump#Election to the presidency. In my opinion, "the wealthiest" and "the oldest" aren't eggs as they quite obviously link to list articles, or at least an article about old/young or wealthy/poor POTUSes. Also, I propose writing "and the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote." wumbolo ^^^ 15:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that that's quite obvious. It may seem logical to a reader after they click, but that's not the same thing and it's not what is meant by MOS:EGG as I understand it.
Thanks for the correction on "wealthiest", and I see that "no prior experience" is also in that section. That simply means we're closer to implementing my suggestion than I thought.
As for extending links to try to address the egg problem, it wouldn't make any sense to do that selectively, and the result would be: "He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote." Scjessey is correct that that would be an unacceptable amount of blue. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: how about we explain the links by appending a WP:SELF to the end of the sentences in question: "(links to lists of U.S. Presidents)" or "(President list articles linked)". I don't think that would violate the WP:SELF policy, and it completely fixes egg problems and it links everything that could be linked. wumbolo ^^^ 16:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Parentheticals to explain the targets of wikilinks to avoid surprise? I've never seen that done, and it seems extreme. If I've never seen it done, neither have readers, and they would likely have no idea what it meant. If you're talking about the lead, where space is especially precious, I don't think you could justify that many words anyway. If you're not, I think you're off topic as this is primarily about that sentence in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have read through this discussion several times and I still don't understand what the problem is. We have a sentence that describes Trump's position or uniqueness in comparison to previous presidents. Three characteristics are named; in each case there is a wikilink to an article that can provide context and all the additional information someone might want. If they don't want the additional information or context, they won't click on the link. For the life of me I can't see why this is regarded as a problem. IMO it's a great way to summarize the information without cluttering the article, and I propose leaving it as it is. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

↑↑↑↑--THIS--↑↑↑↑ -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors differ widely in their awareness of MOS:EGG, their interpretation of it, and how much they care about it. Thus you will occasionally see discussions that don't make sense or seem to make mountains out of molehills. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Surely his 5 years in the New York Military Academy carries some significance. According to some off-the-cuff rumors I heard, he wanted to serve in the military but was turned down by the US Army because of his chronic foot-in-mouth disease, the Air Force turned him down as a pilot because his hands were too small to grip the yoke and of course, the foot issue, the US Navy turned him down because his rear outweighed his qualifications for rear admiral, the latter of which led to his carear in rear-estate. Only in America. ^[FBDB] ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC) ^{Somebody must've spiked the Modelo. Apologies...I'm typically not one who spreads rumors, especially off-the-cuff ones. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)}

Idea for a related article

I've been thinking that we should consider creating the article List of senior Trump admonistartion people who quit or were fired (or a better title if anyone can think of one). There is solid coverage in reliable sources.[1][2][3][4]. If we were to create such an article, I see it being organized along a timeline with a short paragraph for each person who left. What do others think about this?- Mr X 🖋 23:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What does "admonistartion people" mean? I'm thinking you meant "administration", and if that's the case...BORING. I would not oppose a list article to help our readers find the many Trump articles that have been created...at least those that haven't been deleted yet. There are so many that are based on unsupported allegations...regardless, a list may prove helpful and we can always eliminate the articles that have been deleted in the future. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

LOLMG, freudian slip! Thanks for catching that Atsme. I'm going to leave it so we can all enjoy a good laugh (albeit at my expense).- Mr X 🖋 00:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the Trump administration is notable for the number of members of it who have been fired by the President is hardly an unsupported allegation. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The list is getting longer. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not nearly as long as ArbCom's list of TB/blocked users. ^[FBDB] ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

One of the news channels talked to this today with a list substantially longer than I’d remembered. I’m not generally into lists; but see how this could be useful for readers. There will naturally be argumentation over the text in each example. But, perhaps better having this in one place. Pity we can’t keep “admonistartion”. O3000 (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but for the sake of neutrality I would widen the scope. Consider an article that covers administration appointments, judicial appointments, ambassadorial appointments, and any associated firings, resignations, and confirmation hearings (including those that are obviously slow-walking some of Trump's appointments). The lede of such an article should focus on the unusually high staff turnover rate, which is well supported by sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that this is a good place to put a reminder that there's an article about notably short political appointments by the Trump administration, for what it's worth.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I guess that would make a quitting/firing article kind of redundant.- Mr X 🖋 15:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

...and I just discovered that someone already created a list of Trump administration's dismissals and resignations two days ago. Well, that was fast.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm losing track of it all. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, those articles should be merged - don't you think? This is getting ridiculous. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We need List of Wikipedia articles related to Donald Trump. {{Donald Trump series}} is becoming bloated and I doubt it includes everything we have already. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

All this time I was blaming Happy Hour for that bloated feeling. By the end of his term, we'll have enough to create Trumpipedia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - in addition to those two lists, there is a table at Presidency of Donald Trump for Notable departures with TALK to split off. They're not quite the same lists or data fields so would be hard to merge. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss Yes, {{Donald Trump series}} at 900+ articles probably missed some. But to try to make a "List of Wikipedia articles related to Donald Trump" seems a bad idea, because of size and because the boundary would be unclear. For example, would one include articles with small side remarks about Trump such as at Conflict of interest, Nepotism, Mary Matalin, or how much of the article has to be about him before it is included? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

List of articles with titles containing the words "Donald Trump" (or "Trump", referring to The Donald) would be a great start. Actually I was mostly joking but that can change if nobody's laughing. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a worthwhile link for the page: Andy Borowitz report. (I'm kidding - that's a parody/humor site - but that particular link is very appropriate for this discussion.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Trump's health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not useful. If you can't post without being blatantly condescending to your fellow "mere wikipedians" then don't bother posting. Yes, this is a formal warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not modify my comments again, Scjessey, by inserting your nonsense right in the middle of them. It's rude and makes discussion threads complete unparssable messes.

But please do keep posting here, for there is no one better able to impeach your nonsense than yourself when you write whoppers like The Washington Post endorsed 44 Democratic candidates and 3 Republican candidates in 2014 because the other Republican candidates were awful, extreme examples of the species, while you’re trying to critique the POV-pushing biases of others. Greg L (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Greg, editorial space and newsspace are two different areas. We do not judge sources by their editorial pages. O3000 (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Please cite your evidence that there is a consensus on such a policy, Objective3000.

And secondly, stop kidding yourself; one does not need to suspend common sense in the face of your wikilawyering with shear nonsense. I have no patience when the wikipedian waitresses are practicing politics here instead of following the RSs. Greg L (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG. And what Wikilawyering and why are you calling me a waitress? Please be civil. O3000 (talk)

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

Yes. Continually failing to assume good faith in other editors is very troubling. Editors unable to restrain their biases when conversing with other editors should probably avoid charged topics like politics, religion, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey, please take your own advice and stop commenting here unless you can control your clearly biased commentary, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I heartedly second that motion. 17:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg L (talk • contribs)

Looks good now - the additions on both sides to the diff have been removed looks much better -- put back wikilink to his article, dropped the editorializing 'effusively' on 'praised health', took out the cite to a March article about VA nomination and took out the "Rear Admiral". Grammatically the short form Dr. or RADM could be used, but in the embedded clause the preference would be to use just his name. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Markbassett. That was a fine job of editing. Greg L (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Greg L: Markbassett didn't actually edit anything in the article, so... er... ? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's worse w/o the recent RS summaries of the Doc's press event. The "effusively praised" and the other one are not "editorializing" by WP, they are the description of the Washington Post and other RS citation. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Effusively praised" is a characterization by one writer at one newspaper. WaPo does not speak for RS. A comprehensive survey of RS would be asking too much, but I'd be satisfied with four more of that phrase or a fair equivalent from high quality sources; otherwise it's editorial cherry-picking. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It was clearly effusive. But, perhaps we can find more commonly used wording. O3000 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not cherrypicking, it's just a more recent perspective after the recentism wore off. There have been many other RS (yes WaPo is RS) that convey the same meaning, that the tone of the briefing was over-the-top and unduly enthusiastic, beyond the tone needed to convey the results of this routine medical exam of a normal adult. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say WaPo was not RS, I said they don't speak for RS. Please read as carefully as I write. There have been many other RS...that convey the same meaning Awesome. So pretend I'm from Missouri and show me four equivalents from high quality sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

[edit conflict) It was arguably effusive, or unequivocal. But I should imagine that plenty of speeches could be characterized shortly afterwards by reporters using all manner of adjectives like “forceful,” "impassioned," "brooding,” or “dour.”

For an encyclopedia however, I would submit that such adjectives are more “vogue of the moment,” unless the effusive nature of the doctor’s delivery was truly what made his press conference notable in a historical sense. I don’t know what the answer is to that (how it would be remembered and characterized a year from now), but I would argue that’s the test: historical; after all the “recentism” (I like that word) wore off. Greg L (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

To: Greg and our careful colleague Mandruss -- the point is that at first we didn't know how to treat Jackson's performance. It was unprecedented and so bizarre. Yes, the effusiveness is what made the press briefing noteworthy and made it so very memorable that it immediately came up in the coverage of Jackson's recent nomination to head the VA. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Let's suppose for the moment that we’re confident that from a 37,000-foot historical perspective, the doctor’s press conference will be remembered—recognized as notable—for his unequivocal affirmation of the President’s good health. I would then propose that the remaining challenge would be to find the most encyclopedic word to describe what made his press conference notable. Greg L (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Your refusal to spend the 10–15 minutes required to find the requested four out of the asserted many does not increase my confidence in your argument. I don't think the onus belongs on me to prove the negative, and I don't think I have made an unreasonable request. If things are as you say, it would be extremely easy to convert me from an oppose to a support, but for some reason you don't want to do that. You do know how to use Google to locate sources? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree more with Mandruss. We should follow the weight of a goodly plurality of RSs on this one in choosing encyclopedic language to use to characterize the press conference. Greg L (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't really think the "effusive" stuff is necessary. The WaPo source, while perfectly legitimate (despite absurd claims otherwise), was not contemporaneous with the actual event. It was written in conjunction with Jackson's appointment to the VA, not his presser about Trump's health. If we use that source as a reference for "effusive" we are, in effect, engaging in a bit of subtle synthesis. If we are going to note in the article how ridiculously (and suspiciously) upbeat Jackson's medical presser was, it should use contemporaneous sources only. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, we do have the contemporaneous WaPo piece by Dana Milbank that made the same point. I do think that the perspective of time is helpful for an encyclopedic description. I don't think what you describe is SYNTH, because it is contained explicitly, and entirely within, the new WaPo source. One might claim it is a characterization that benefits from recent perspective on the press event, but our understanding is always broadened and refined by additional information and context. And it's not just a single recent RS. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That the Milbank piece is an non-citeable Opinion article (and snarky) is kind of proving the point against 'effusive' -- and many other WaPo articles that are citeable did not use the word. But mostly I'd point out that where the later WaPo article is about the VA nomination of the doctor or judging his speaking style it is just not about Trump health report and is not one of the WP:BESTSOURCES. Look, all I said was I think the article is fine now -- the dispute is OBE since the article now has removed both sides of the recent adds. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: To be clear, Jackson's presser absolutely described Trump's health in effusive/glowing/praiseworthy terms that raised many eyebrows in reliable sources. There are umpteen potential sources for characterizing the presser as "effusive" and pretending it wasn't a little bizarre (especially when he was talking about genes) isn't going to fly. I just think that the WaPo article about the Jackson's appointment to the VA is not the source we should use. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

What isn't going to fly is repeated claims about RS while ignoring repeated good-faith and reasonable requests for documentation of said claims. Sorry, but we don't just take people's word for things around here, and that is not an AGF violation.
I've now done a bit of googling and I don't see nearly enough quality RS for wiki voice "effusive". If there were umpteen, I should have seen at least five on the first page. My oppose is now a strong oppose. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anybody suggested you google for the word "effusive". SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Show me the requested additional four links or drop it please. If the WaPo one you're asserting is the Milbank opinion piece, make that five; we don't use opinion pieces for wiki voice. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Scjessey - Simply put, coverage mostly used no modifier about the health report, and those that did mostly said it as "excellent" health (mixing the category and use as an adjective) or as a "glowing" assessment. The section is about Trumps health, so rewording it into a review of the Doctor is inappropriate content that smells both political and fringe at this point. One might equally argue that completing the context would require starting it "After weeks of false rumors about his health and mental state..." Look, the section was fine and the argument is OBE since the content reverted out and it looks fine again. So there is no point in continuing a debate over discarded material. We can close this section. Over & out. Markbassett (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

-- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope these links will be the end of this dispute about "effusive" -- we could use "extravagant" "exaggerated" "bizarrely inflated" or some other paraphrase that reflects the mainstream coverage, but the RS reporting is perfectly clear. Reporters who have seen past briefings on the annual presidential check-up described it the same way, "effusive" is a good English word for it. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And why, pray tell, would it be so important to qualify Dr. Jackson's tone when delivering his presser? We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; we avoid WP:puffery and sensationalism. As other editors have pointed out, we could also report the widespread innuendo about Trump's mental instability, which led to his request for a cognitive test, but we have decided not to go down this road. When Dr. Bronstein delivered an even more "effusive" health report for candidate Trump, a similar debate occurred, and editors wisely decided to stick to the facts. — JFG ^talk 16:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are suggesting we tell Dr. Jackson to avoid sensationalism, you can reach him at the White House holding pen for agency nominees. It's "Bornstein" btw. You could also consider starting an article on Trump sycophantry, which is a topic that's been widely discussed in RS over many years and actually would help our readers to survey the central point in a non-OR and DUE WEIGHT way that describes the pattern of otherwise competent professionals making jackasses of themselves, reportedly to avoid arousing suspicion or retaliation by Trump if they fail to do so. SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You are deflecting, but good luck writing Sycophantry of Donald Trump, which obviously will be supported by thousands of RS discussing hundreds of incidents. I for one will have a great time reading such an effort. — JFG ^talk 18:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I was assigning that task to you -- first we'll get a useful new article, second it will distract you from ~~dogging~~(misinterpreted levity redeacted. no harm intended 18:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)) all the other politics articles. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Please strike your WP:personal attack. — JFG ^talk 18:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Concur, entirely inappropriate. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, wiki voice must fairly represent the predominance of RS. If that's wrong, please point to the policy that says otherwise. As I said previously, it would be unreasonable for me to demand that you conduct a comprehensive survey of RS. In lieu of that I said I would be swayed by five "high quality" sources. I assumed it was obvious I was referring to the notch (or two) above what we call "reliable" sources, what I call Tier 1. I went out of my way to state a number no larger than the bare minimum, so as to not place an unfair burden of proof. What you have brought is three Tier 1's—CNN, TribLive(AP), and The Atlantic—and the latter just says "praised", which hardly supports "effusively praised". Conspicuously absent are sources like WaPo, LATimes, NYTimes, BBC, and so on for the rest of the 20 or so comprising Tier 1. I think it's a fair conclusion that you are cherry-picking, rather than conducting a fair and objective evaluation of reliable sources, and my opposition stands. I fully understand that this comes down to a democratic vote in the end, but my democratic vote is nay. Sorry for not playing ball. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This all began when somebody took it upon themselves to claim that two separate WaPo sources were not enuf. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

How dare they! ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Birtherism is not racism

Hatting conspiracy theory and editorializing. --MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This should be removed from "Racial views" section. The claims of Birtherism being racist are DNC talking points and Wikipedia should strive to create content that is objective and not campaign rhetoric from the Democratic Party.

A new section should be created called "Obama Birth Certificate Controversy" and fairly discuss the the actual events and evidence supporting Birtherism. There is enough actual evidence to suggest that Obama's birth certificate may have been faked (layers in scanned PDF, evidence of tampering, CT based SSN, etc...) which have absolutely nothing to do with his skin color.

This may become super critical in the near future because if Trump or Arapaio did uncover evidence of birth certificate fraud, it is pretty much guaranteed that this evidence will be revealed if they try to impeach Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdotp (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"There is enough actual evidence to suggest that Obama's birth certificate may have been faked..." Nonsense. Certainly not evidence of the quality required for Wikipedia articles. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you not read the Trump-Russia dossier? Actual evidence is not required - allegations and opinions are all that's needed. Read some of the Trump-related articles if you have any doubt. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTFORUM. Why was this conspiracy nonsense un-hatted? O3000 (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE...editors should not be hatting discussions they simply don't like. The article states: "Trump played a leading role in "birther" conspiracy theories that...." How is that racism and what makes it relevant to the section "Racial views"? I can see it in a section titled "Conspiracy theories", but not racial views. Let the discussion play out. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The editor can rephrase in a non-conspiratorial manner. And your snarky comment: Actual evidence is not required.... is once again casting aspersions against other editors and not helpful. Meanwhile, it should be hatted. O3000 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

How is that racism and what makes it relevant to the section "Racial views"?. Because birtherism is, at its core, a racist attack on the former president. The connection has been made numerous times in numerous sources, e.g. Bill Maher: Donald Trump Is A Racist But He Doesn't Know It, Are Donald Trump and his fellow 'birthers' racist?, and so on. TheValeyard (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Bill Maher? A RS? *sigh* O3000 please, stop with the unfounded aspersion claims - you obviously don't know what it means or you wouldn't be using it everytime you disagree with someone. It's ridiculous to claim that not being born in the US (which is what makes a person eligible or ineligible for the presidency) is racist - it doesn't even move the pointer on the BS dial. It was a conspiracy theory, not a racial slur. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Sourced to Business Insider, bro, so yes, it is a reliable source. In fact, it is being used in the birtherism article right now. If you wanna take your salt over there and try to get it removed, good luck with that, lol. TheValeyard (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Politifact published the original memo that started the conspiracy theory. There are far more RS than the ones cited in the article. It has been challenged, and you cannot simply sweep it under the rug because you don't like it. In fact, see our own article: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

In fact, that article is where I found many of the sources linking the conspiracy theory to racism - sources I showed you on my talk page in hopes we were done with it on this page. That is the only issue that was under discussion here - whether it is appropriate for us to put birtherism under the "Racial opinions" section. I am disappointed that you are continuing to promote this conspiracy theory, something we generally prefer not to have people do on talk pages. The above discussion has been hatted three or four times (I lost count), and each time you reopened it. Now you are continuing it outside the hat. I believe you have asked another administrator to comment, and I will go along with whatever he thinks, but personally I think it appropriate to hat this kind of stuff, and sooner rather than later. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Could Someone With the Ability to Edit this page make some edits in the Foreign Policy section?

Good evening, while reading this page I noticed that the formatting under Foreign Policy is a bit inconsistent. Would it be possible for someone to put the information about the airstrikes against Syria under its own subheading along with editing the information about the most recent one to mention the fact that France and the UK also launched attacks? Brboyle (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a biography about Trump, so I don't think the air strikes in Syria are worthy of a separate subheading unless the matter becomes more significant. Nor do I think including France and the UK is biographically relevant. That would be more a matter for 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs, where it has already been properly covered. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the air strikes in Syria are extremely important. The amount of coverage they received from various news outlets and the response from other World Leaders makes them a significant part of Presidency. They also signal a major change in ethics in his approach to foreign policy compared to his campaign rhetoric. These airstrikes are a huge part of defining his foreign policy as president (Which is what this section of his biography is covering) and are definitely as important (if not more) than the movements in Cuba and even Israel both of which have their own subheadings. Also, the Russian ambassador's response to the airstrikes could be added to the Russia subheading because it shows a key part of Trump's relationship with Russia during his presidency which is also a very important part of his foreign policy. Brboyle (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Well that's an awful lot of opinion for something that happened less than 24 hours ago. We cannot possibly know the significance of the strike at this point. The mainstream media went bananas over the previous strike, and it proved to mean less than nothing. Patience. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that the air strikes in Syria are of extreme importance. I also do agree that much of Trump's presidency thus far has focused on his ethics approach vs his campaign rhetoric and this is a large defining moment in his presidency. Syria has been an ongoing hot topic of debate from Trump and his teams, and I imagine that this is only the beginning of a long area of media coverage. While not as much information is there as with Cuba and Israel, it does indeed deserve its own subheading for its mere rank of importance in his presidential actions Emilysobo24 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM - let it incubate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Wow! We agree on something! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

We probably agree on a whole lot more...things just move so fast on the internet, it's hard to process it all. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a biography. There are multiple other articles where information about these raids should be included. They already have their own article and should also be mentioned (maybe they already are, I didn't look) in Presidency of Donald Trump, Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump, and Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. Probably others as well. But things need to matter in the overall story of his long life in order to go in this article - and these air strikes are not there yet. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to request that 1 particular statement in the Racial Views section of the Public Profile category be changed. Donald Trump did no accuse all Mexican immigrants of being criminals and rapists. Perhaps changing the line to "he was accused of describing Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists". 2601:1C1:8700:A40:3150:D64E:7955:8911 (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Per the second source referenced for that statement, his quote was He said: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best.

"They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us.

"They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I feel the statement in the article doesn't imply he accused all mexicans. — IVORK _Discuss 04:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Net worth in infobox source

Should be sourced. Sovietmessiah (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sourced at Donald Trump#Wealth. Infoboxes don't need redundant citations. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not a fixed number, unlike the box office gross of a movie premiere - so it would require ongoing maintenance and as such, potential errors for failure to update, so I think it's best to not include it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It's only updated once per year as per current consensus #5. O3000 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, the popular thread in the press about Trump’s attacks against Amazon's effects on retail businesses are due to ownership of WaPo by Bezos. But Forbes, where we get the net worth number, stated that Amazon caused Trump to lose $400 million due to Amazon's effects on his retail properties.[5] I’m not suggesting that this be added anywhere. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It does appear to be revenge...but at the same time, the USPS has steadily lost money as reported in multiple RS. According to Forbes contributor Steve Pociask, president and CEO of the American Consumer Institute (ACI), the USPS has $4.1 billion in unpaid employee retirement related expenses. It weighs heavily when added to their $121 billion in unfunded liabilities. Maybe Trump should have consulted with his FB & Twitter followers before he said anything about Amazon.^[FBDB] ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The USPS problems are well known and Trump's comments are absurdly simplistic. But, that's another story (article) and shouldn't be added here either. But then, DT is the self-proclaimed "king of debt". O3000 (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The info box is just for the Forbes number, not for saying Amazon is yet another place he speaks for a downtrodden U.S. group, be it retail or Autos and steel, as a consistent part of his political approach, or the other POV theories floated. Just the number. Markbassett (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

OP was stating the statement should be sourced inline, not disputing the accuracy of it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The process is quite simple. Each March I update the net worth number and then Mandruss corrects my errors/omissions.:) O3000 (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Noting that there is not a single citation in the lead or the infobox, and the result is a very clean lead and infobox. There is no rationale for making this the sole exception. I think this should be standard practice in any article. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Inauguration

I have inserted a brief mention of his inauguration into the lead in chronological order. The lead already mentions protests against him, and so it makes sense to also mention the Inauguration (during which hundreds of thousands of people came out in support). The inauguration was also a historical event, plus being the time when protests against him peaked. Mentioning the inauguration seems like a good segue between the election and what he’s done as president. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC) edited08:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss reverted on the basis of consensus #20: “20. Mention protests in the lede section with this exact wording: His election and policies sparked numerous protests.” I did not change that exact wording, but rather added “which peaked around his inauguration”. I already explained why, above. Do we want to be vague about when these protests occurred? Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The hidden comment says: "DO NOT CHANGE this sentence...". You changed the sentence by extending it. Interestingly, that might be gamed by adding a new sentence instead. But then there's the consensus item itself, "Mention protests in the lede section with this exact wording". Not "this exact wording followed by something new". You need a consensus to modify #20, which you are properly seeking in this thread, albeit late. Sorry if this seems legalistic, but the alternative is a very slippery slope. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss, it’s no big deal, as long as I’m not drawn and quartered for allegedly gaming the system and being disruptive and a million other bullshit things. Do you object to adding those five words as follows: “His election and policies sparked numerous protests, which peaked around his inauguration”? The main article about those protests says: “Organized protests against Trump in the United States peaked shortly after his inauguration....” Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No drawing and/or quartering here.
I have no opinion on the content question. Which is why I didn't give one.

No worries, others will be along to give theirs. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN, Scjessey, Power~enwiki, Objective3000, MrX, and Dervorguilla: -- Anythingyouwant has asked on my UTP, "No one has objected, so how long should we wait?",[6] so I'm pinging the editors involved in consensus #20, minus JFG who is on wikibreak. The nutshell is that Anythingyouwant seeks to amend #Current consensus item 20 by adding these five words and a wikilink, and I have no opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mandruss. I’m not sure it amends any consensus, because no one previously suggested adding or not adding these five words (or the like). Anyway, it seems useful. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn’t have added it as his time in office hasn’t ended. But, I don’t have a strong opinion. O3000 (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I too have to join the no strong opinion bandwagon. I'd say weak support, seems okay addition Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection, provided that it is changed immediately upon any larger protest that may occur.- Mr X 🖋 11:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely it would need to be changed in that case. Likewise the lead should be changed if he is impeached or if he establishes a monarchy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

~~I support Anythingyouwant's suggested addition, which I think adds useful context.~~ I ~~also~~ support Mandruss's reversion, because consensus items should be properly discussed before being changed. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any reliable source saying "protests peaked around his inauguration". There were protests immediately after his election. There were protests before his inauguration. There were protests during and after his inauguration. There were protests months later. It appears to me that "peaked around his inauguration" is Original Research. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, our article Protests against Donald Trump says this, but the cited source at that article does not say that; it was published three days after the inauguration and mostly describes the process of tallying attendance at the Women's March. Yes, the Women's March was the biggest, but it was one of many. Maybe it was the "peak" but that is not something I have seen any reliable source say. And saying it seems to dismiss the importance, or even the existence, of subsequent protests like the March for Science.--MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2018 (P.S. This is a slightly expanded version of my earlier comment that Galobtter responds to below; edit conflict, sorry.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC))

Hmm, oppose on that basis. Unable to find any source either; also probably mention in it in our body first anyhow.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding us about Wikipedia content policy. Oppose. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm changing my !vote to oppose based on MelanieN's reasoning. I was thinking purely of the time frame, and not considering that the addition would falsely tie the protests to the inauguration itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I still oppose including this in the lead. It's simply not important enough. in office since January 20, 2017 is mention enough of the ceremonial inauguration. His election and policies sparked numerous protests. isn't tied directly to the inauguration protests (and correctly so); there were more protests than "normal" for probably six months after the election. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP

This edit by User:Calton is an obvious BLP violation. Per WP:BLP, “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.” Calton seems to think we can have the allegation in the lead, but put the denial later on, perhaps in a footnote. Obviously WP:BLP means the accusation and denial need to be together. If that were not already blindingly obvious, WP:LEAD says: “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.” I know it’s tempting to flush Wikipedia policies and guidelines down the toilet for partisan purposes. Maybe it’s better to have an obviously partisan lead, so readers will get a taste of what’s in the rest of the article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Where is the allegation? Trump has dismissed Comey, Mueller is doing the investigation, there are links between the trump campaign and russia. All of these are true. I'm not overtly against having that denial but neither is it a BLP violation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, I think the reason Trump officially dismissed Comey is equally as important as the dismissal itself: NYTimes stated: The officials said that Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, pushed for Mr. Comey’s dismissal. All the speculation and biased editorializing should be omitted - facts only, please - but if included, should be done using in-text attribution. Also keep in mind the push for a criminal investigation into Comey, Clinton & Lynch. That's what happens when we're dealing with RECENTISM - constant updates for clarity, adding facts as they become known, and removal of unsubstantiated allegations. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

More fully, WP:BLP says “If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.” The lead of this BLP says, “the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel in an investigation into coordination or links between the Trump campaign and Russian government”. The allegation is obviously that Trump might have committed treasonous collusion. The only way the allegation could be more serious would be if it were an allegation that he did in fact do the things alleged. It strikes me as wikilawyering and gaming the system to propose that this provision of WP:BLP can always be evaded by saying the accusers are only 50% or 99% sure of guilt. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting we "evade" policy. Put the denial in the appropriate part of the article's body, but not the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Why do we need to put it anywhere if there’s no allegation? Anyway, as already stated, the lead needs to stand on its own. Where else do allegations get separated from denials? Trump’s denials have been incessant and emphatic, and it violates WP:NPOV to keep it out of the lead, in addition to BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, the investigation into coordination with Russia is massively noteworthy (and thus, ledeworthy), whereas Trump's denial of collusion is not noteworthy at all (and thus, not ledeworthy). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

If the allegation is noteworthy by default the subjects denial is as well. WP:PUBLICFIGURE makes no distinction there or any change if it is the lead of the body. PackMecEng (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:PUBLICFIGURE doesn't say that anywhere. In fact, "by default the subject's denial is as well" is something you just made up that has no grounding in policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is my interpretation. The policy specifically states "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." PackMecEng (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It does not, however, say it must be reported in the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Nor does it say it must not be reported in the lead. It is assumed you would report it where the accusation is listed. But eh not a hill I am willing to die on. PackMecEng (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that every portion of the sentence is a true fact not an allegation. Nowhere in the sentence does it say anything about Trump specifically; while you would/could of course make such an inference, it is not stated and hardly even implied. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm simply pointing out that your [p]er WP:BLP, “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.” says nothing, nada, nil, zilch, fuck-all about having it appear in the lede. Your text, in other words, had nothing, nada, nil, zilch, fuck-all to do with your claim. This is not even slightly complicated.

Obviously WP:BLP means the accusation and denial need to be together. Strange new meaning of "obviously" I was previously unaware of. --Calton | Talk 13:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Sorry, but I have to agree with Galobtter, Calton and MrX here. It is absolutely not a BLP violation to omit the denial, as long as it is in the body of the article. That Trump and/or his associates may have colluded with Russia to win the election is massively noteworthy, which is why it is in the lede. That Trump denies the collusion isn't noteworthy at all, in fact it is expected. Put it in the body of the article in the appropriate place instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Why would we need to include the denial anywhere if there was no allegation? Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right. If the policy was meant to apply to the lead, it would state, "and this applies to the lead, too". Since it doesn't, it wasn't. Sorry if my taste for logic is offended. Go directly to WP:VPP, do not pass Go. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This should obviously be in the lead. It's a no brainer - NPOV and BLP require it. Attempting to have an editor sanctioned for trying to include it is quite chilling. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, that is for violating the page restrictions, not for including the material. There is nothing preventing Anythingyouwant bringing up the issue on the talk page before reverting in violation of the restrictions. If it is indeed obvious, there'll be a quick consensus for it, if it isn't, then it needs debating.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely should not be in the lead. It goes without saying that a US president under investigation for criminal activity would deny having committed the criminal activity. Adding this to the lead runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. It's not encyclopedic and diminishes the importance of the historic federal investigation.- MrX 🖋 14:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- It goes without saying is original research and SYNTH. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  - But It's a no brainer is not. Allllllrighty then. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  - Um... actually it's just an observation, having seen many, many politicians, going back as far as Nixon, deny having committed crimes. I didn't add it to the article.- MrX 🖋 15:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    - No, you removed the denial from the article and justified it just above using that line, which I believe is original research. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
      - What are you talking about? I removed it because it's implicitly obvious and it's excessive detail for the lead. His denial belongs in the body of the article with other routine detail. - Mr X 🖋 15:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Holy crap! What a discussion. I am the one who added "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." to the BLP policy. I deliberately did not go into more detail as to where it should be located, but I do support that it should be somewhere near the allegation. It's only a few words, and it's there right now. Just leave it. No harm done. If we're going to err, do it on the side of caution. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe

Could do with rewording, though; the previous sentence isn't in the vein of "Trump is alleged to have colluded" which is what inserted sentence kind of seems to say it is - it looks odd; "Trump has denied any personal collusion with Russia." or "Trump has denied the existence of any collusion" would be better, although indeed, I don't see any strong reason not to include and do weakly support its inclusion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The existing text does not make an allegation against Trump; it states factually that there is an investigation into his campaign. Those are two very different things. Are we supposed to write that Trump denies that there is an investigation?- Mr X 🖋 15:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha, to be fair I think he has denied that in the past. PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That was basically what I was saying above, actually - that the sentence is entirely factual. Doesn't mean we can't write that Trump denies the collusion. Mostly meh on it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't BLP apply to the entire page?--MONGO 15:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Help me see why the accusation of wrongdoing in the lede is not allowed to be followed by his denial of wrongdoing in the matter. We have many sources besides just Trump that have denied he had any wrongdoing in the matter, yet only the accusation is allowed?--MONGO 15:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Same question here, Mongo. In fact, I was just going to suggest a refresher on MOS:LEADBIO. I am beginning to wonder why that very important denial is being denied for inclusion in the lede which is contrary to policy? The lede is the first thing that shows up in a Google search. Also keeping in mind that our readers sometimes don't get past the lede so it's important to include such important facts in the summary. I vaguely recall an editor mentioning WP:BLPCOI and how it relates to editors who have expressed disdain for certain politicians while showing favoritism toward others. Isn't that what the FBI scandal is all about - extreme bias, disdain and favoritism? NPOV-BLP should take precedence, regardless of the subject. Consistency and facts only, please. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Be careful about waving WP:BLPCOI, as it applies to editors who violate NPOV by censoring properly sourced negative content about their favorite politician. Seriously, that cuts both ways. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I know it does, and it should. Any editor who obsesses over any topic in an advocacy-like fashion, and publishes their disdain and/or bias on WP TPs and in WP discussions, and then edit in violation of our 3 core content policies and BLP policy should be of concern. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. BLP also applies to the lead. When I added that wording to policy, I suspected that it might need to be tightened up, but figured we could cross that bridge when we got to it. This may be that time. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What FBI scandal? O3000 (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That's the conspiracy theory manufactured by Trump and Co. and pushed by fringe, unreliable, sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A huge chunk of the world is totally unaware of the "FBI scandal" mentioned by Atsme. But in right wing and fringe media, it is HUGE. Entirely manufactured from flimsy evidence (or no evidence at all), it's a shiny object to conceal reality from The Deplorables. It's educational to watch some of the Fox News opinion shows, or read some of the more fringey parts of conservative media, to learn about this fabricated behemoth and try to follow the narrative they've constructed out of tissue paper. Some of it is so patently absurd, it makes me laugh out loud. But to conservatively-minded people who follow this crap, it is absolutely a Real Thing they think everyone should be talking about. It is not at all surprising that many editors try to introduce aspects of it into Wikipedia articles, and it's vital that the neutral editors remain vigilant. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What makes this confusing is that the current wording isn't really an accusation against Trump, the subject of the article. If it were worded as a direct and personal accusation, then the denial should accompany it, so right now I'm leaning toward not including it in the lead, but, since that content is likely more expansive and detailed in the body, a denial should be in the body. It all depends on how it's worded in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a lot of hyperbole about the current wording that isn't merited if you look into what it actually says. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The fact that the text does not specifically call out Trump makes it clear that Trump's denial is unnecessary. There really isn't anything that needs to be said about the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

See the new section I started below - the paragraph in question belongs in his presidency, not in his BLP. There is quite a bit of material in this BLP that belongs in other articles. Perhaps we need a list? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh. I don't see any good reason why we can't have "Trump has denied any such collusion" (even shorter!) in the lead. Sure it's implicitly obvious, but 2/3 of the lead is obvious to most readers. It's not like we're adding There was no collusion, folks. No collusion. You know there wasn't any collusion. No collusion. No collusion. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I may have missed your point, Drmies - did it have anything to do with denial of collusion? ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, "I don't see any good reason why we can't have "Trump has denied any such collusion"...in the lead." Drmies (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Drmies,

I was joking...I didn't add the customary smiley or ^[FBDB] because I thought maybe you were used to me by now. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It is clear now there is consensus to include a short denial from Trump's side. I will be adding this shortly. Or, per Atsme's point below, the short blurb could be excised from this article and left in more relevant articles (his presidency article, the investigations article, the interference article, his campaign article, etc). Mr Ernie (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we should find a reliable source that has counted the denials, since this is a point POTUS has emphasized daily in his public appearances. Then we could say "Trump has denied any such collusion 1400 times." or whatever the factchecked count is. It's like periodically updating his wealth $$. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I kinda like seeing denials close to allegations. Even when superfluous coming from a person who seems to make numerous denials a day. What’s the cost of a few words? O3000 (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Well then we can all say I told you so! when the investigation is complete and the results are released. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, that's enough giggling. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The lede now says "Trump has repeatedly denied any such collusion." Hope that settles the issue. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Article size

WP:Article size: 88kb readable prose - WP:LEAD: 6 paragraphs in the lead. The article needs some serious reduction and tightening of the lead. Please see Barrack Obama if you need something to serve as a guide regarding what does and doesn't belong in this BLP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, there is quite a bit of material in this BLP that belongs in the presidency article, including the paragraph in question above. Your thoughts? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I do think there is too much detail in some of the text sections. As for the lede, I think it is what it has to be; considering the amount of material there is to cover for a person who has been in the spotlight for 50 years, it is a model of conciseness and I don't see anything that should be removed. BTW It is five paragraphs now, I combined the "domestic policy" and "foreign policy" paragraphs. We have a short introductory "who he is" paragraph; a good summary of his business and other activities pre-presidency; a good paragraph on his campaign and election; a paragraph summarizing a few of his most notable policies; and yes, we need to keep the paragraph about the investigation. That one issue has dominated his presidency far more than any of his policies. And someday we will need to summarize its conclusion or aftermath, whatever that may be, in that same lede paragraph. Comparing the lede to Obama's, it is actually shorter (1 1/2 computer screens of text for Trump, compared to more than 2 for Obama). Someday when I have more time I will look into trimming some of the overly-detailed text sections, which have tended to grow line-by-line as people added the latest development or headline. --MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The only section I see that could be significantly reduced is "2016 presidential campaign"; though I feel there's unlikely to be consensus for any specific removals at this point. There may individual sentences that can be removed as Melanie mentions; I'm not going to try to do that until the news cycle enters a summer lull. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

until the news cycle enters a summer lull? What an optimist! --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Now you've done it. I'll be referring to lyrics from The Sound of Music in Wikipedia content discussions. These are a few of my favorite things. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - you said "considering the amount of material there is to cover for a person who has been in the spotlight for 50 years", yet a substantial amount of the coverage focuses on his 1 year as president of the US? How is that not UNDUE, much less RECENTISM? I'm thinking we should keep the BLP a BLP, and the presidency the presidency. There are far more interesting things about Trump's life than his 1st year as president (which belongs in his presidency article). ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Same way 2/3ish of Obama's lead is on his presidency. Trump has received exponentially much more coverage on his presidency than anything else. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's really, really hard for me to think of anything in his previous 70 years that is "far more interesting" than his first year as president. Is professional wrestling or building condos or getting divorced more "interesting" than spending a year as the most powerful person in the world, with nations hanging on your every tweet? Or to focus more closely on our PAGs as you like to call them - things like DUE and BALANCE and VERIFY - did he get anywhere near as much Reliable Source coverage for anything he did in his civilian life - anything at all - as he does on a daily basis now? --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yikes. First the van Trapp family is in the NYT crossword puzzle and now this. How can I sleep with Edelweiss running through my mind? O3000 (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Be verrrry careful who you sleep with, especially if you allow them to run through your mind. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of running through my mind.... Atsme, if you were ever a fan of Traffic and/or Dave Mason, you may appreciate this from a great CD: Ain't Your Legs Tired Baby. Enjoy! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I cut 600 words, from various Wealth and Business sections, Professional wrestling and DACA and elsewhere. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, 😂 - I understand that to many, it certainly seems that way. What Trump did before he became President is what made him famous; his presidency is what made him infamous, whereas with Obama and GW Bush, it was the other way around. Presidency of Donald Trump is 106 kB (17,114 words) of "readable prose size" which surpasses our guideline recommendations, and that's prior to him finishing his first 1½ yrs. as president. This article is 85 kB (13805 words) of "readable prose size", and includes even more material about his presidency, not counting any of the other Trump articles on WP - quite a few of which we can/should condense or delete all together, such as Trump's racial views, (which is not actually about his views; rather, it's about how others perceive his views), his sexcapades, business career, lots of allegations that remain unsubstantiated, and on and on - oh my, the details! It probably wouldn't hurt to refresh our memories and review WP:SS again. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about RfC - survey results near top of page

Who created that section - THANK YOU!! We need more on various other controversial Trump-related articles. Wondering if we can make it a template we can add to the header? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The page Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus was created by the now self blocked Coffee. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Orlando nightclub shooting for a way to do something similar in the header, but I prefer this format, only partly because it's more visible. Many editors routinely ignore the header. Regardless of which method is used, it should be transcluded from a subpage because that allows separate page protection (this one is permanent ECP), a separate scary edit notice, and so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, ok - thank you, Emir. And thank you Mandruss for providing the wikilink. What are your thoughts, oh great template builder? Decisions, decisions...^{Atsme📞📧} 19:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2018

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Donald trump and every other president gave an oath Folsomprince (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. O3000 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump by Al Goldstein

https://www.therialtoreport.com/2016/10/30/donald-trump/ ~~ Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Z75SG61Ilunqpdb: Any bit in particular you would like to share? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: it is a short audio clip, I am not qualified to evaluate what place in the grand scheme of history it may hold. ~~ Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)