Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 90

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 89 Archive 90 Archive 91

Racially charged

In light of continuing reports of Trump's racial views, specifically about Europe "losing its culture" because of immigration[1][2][3], I would like to focus the discussion about Trump's racial stance based on the feedback in the broader discussion a few sections up.

I'm seeking input on how to phrase the following sentence for an upcoming RfC. If you simply oppose mentioning Trump's racial attitudes in the lead, please save it for the RfC. If you have ideas about the proposed wording, please share them.

The idea would be to replace this:

; many of his public statements were controversial or false.

with a sentence something like this:

Many of his public statements have been false or controversial, and many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially-charged.

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful collaboration. :-)- MrX 🖋

I wonder how productive it will be to combine two highly controversial changes into one: Taking "controversial or false" out of the campaign context, and the racial aspect. ―Mandruss  13:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
So do you think two sentences would be better? It could be a two part RfC, with one part addressing a change from "; many of his public statements were controversial or false." to "Many of his public statements have been controversial or false.", and the other part addressing "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially-charged.". What do you think?- MrX 🖋 14:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Might as well be two separate RfCs; the issues are completely different, and RfC count reduction is not a goal. Once you have consensus for both parts, joining them into one sentence should be an uncontroversial matter of flow (that would probably need a quick survey, but it should be an easy pass). ―Mandruss  14:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a valid point. What are your thoughts on this wording:

Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially-charged.

This is built off a suggestion from Snow Rise. - MrX 🖋 14:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I dunno. I'm still in learn mode on most such things, but seems a bit weaselly. Perceived[by whom?] Trump opponents? It seems like an empty statement. I think "by the media" would be an improvement. I think "by some of the media" would be a step too far, provided we're confident that it reflects a majority media view. If an RfC presented two options I think chances of a consensus for one of them would be fair to good. ―Mandruss  14:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Perceived by "many", unless you know of a succinct way of saying 160 million plus US citizens, legislators, world leaders, historians, journalists, scholars, federal prosecutors, and so on. It's far beyond just the media or opponents.- MrX 🖋 15:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
If you can support all that with solid non-opinion RS, then "widely perceived". Otherwise it's personal perception of perceptions, highly subject to natural human bias. I'd expect to see those RS links in an RfC, and I'd Oppose if they were absent or insufficient. ―Mandruss  15:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no need for weaselly "perceived as". Who disputes that many of his statements are racially charged? RS widely confirm this. It's not a matter of which "side" or ideology is reporting. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Let's see what others think about it.- MrX 🖋 16:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
However I think others have made a valid point that controversial is not the same as false and that each of those categories relate to several different kinds of statements -- not just racially charged, but also misrepresenting policies and actions of himself and his administration, and lying about various readily-verifiable facts. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I do think this is a suggestion worth considering; I'm not committing to any particular action just yet. I do suggest that "many of his comments and actions" in the "racially charged" sentence be changed to "some of his comments and actions". The racial hints and dog-whistles have been nowhere near as frequent, obvious, and well documented as the falsehoods, which are a daily occurrence. --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Side discussion. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • (Today's new one: claiming that a new poll shows him to be the most popular Republican in history, "more popular than Lincoln".[4]) --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    Linked article you provide says "A Gallup poll found that 90 percent of Republicans approve of Trump’s job performance..." so is this a lie claimed or simply a boastful exaggeration? Link also says there were no PO polls during Lincolns time, but there have been polls since and Lincoln has rarely ranked 90 even if only republicans are concerned.--MONGO (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    It's a falsehood (I try to avoid the word "lie) because George W. Bush had rankings higher than Trump's for most of his second year - as high as 98% at several points. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Best way forward is to make sure who feels his comments are racial and then qualify it rather than just leave a blanket statement. "According to A,B,C,D, Trumps comments have been seen as racist, however according to E,F,G and H, they have been perceived as lacking racist overtones."--MONGO (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    That kind of detail belongs in the text. We are talking about whether to include an unsourced summary sentence in the lede - which we can do if the material is significantly covered in the text. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    "According to nobody, no statement of Trump's had racial overtones" -- SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that would practical for the lead and it would run afoul of WP:FALSEBALANCE. We could, however, write "Many of his statements and actions have been racially-charged, but some people dispute that." - MrX 🖋 17:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
That's more like it. Yes.--MONGO (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
On second thought, I don't like this at all so will wait for the Rfc!!--MONGO (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I think MrX's original proposal is fine as is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Still rather undue for the lead. I am not seeing anything strong enough to change the previous consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    If you simply oppose mentioning Trump's racial attitudes in the lead, please save it for the RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talkcontribs)
No I saw that, it is just worth mentioning. Also sign your darn posts, you are not new here. PackMecEng (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
It was worth mentioning that you can't respect a simple request not to disrupt a discussion? Great!- MrX 🖋 19:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
No just how bad an idea this is less than 6 months after the last failed RFC for this. Do you understand now? Great! PackMecEng (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
No, I honestly don't. There was never an RfC for "this".- MrX 🖋 20:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
You do not believe this falls under consensus item 24? Why would that be? PackMecEng (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is what sources say, in their own voice, about Trump's racial stance. This is not an exhaustive list.
These should provide good guidance for summarizing this in the lead. - MrX 🖋 18:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

"If it were a one-time comment, an inadvertent insensitivity, it would still have stirred a firestorm. But Mr. Trump has said so many things on so many occasions that have rubbed the raw edges of race in America that they have raised the larger issue. "
— The New York Times

"The president’s approach to race has by many accounts damaged America’s standing in the world and complicated his foreign policy."
— The New York Times

"Mr. Trump’s history of racially inflammatory episodes traces back to his first days in the public eye. "
— The New York Times

"As he became more of a public figure, Mr. Trump waded into racially charged controversies that periodically erupted in New York. "
— The New York Times

"Trump has a long record as a provocateur on matters of race and ethnicity."
— Fortune

"You don’t even have to look into Trump’s heart to see his racism. You only have to look at all the things he’s done and said over the years – from the early Seventies, when he settled with the Justice Department over accusations of housing discrimination, to Monday, when just hours after his speech news broke he is considering pardoning anti-immigrant sheriff Joe Arpaio."
— Rolling Stone

"He has built a legacy of race-baiting throughout his career – from his apartment buildings in the outer boroughs right into the White House."
— Rolling Stone

"President Donald Trump’s long history with race is complicated."
— PBS

"While Trump’s actions have landed on both sides of racial currents, his public record depicts a man who most often moves in one direction: overlooking racial sensitivity and concerns in the name of fighting “political correctness.”"
— PBS

"Most Americans think President Trump is a racist, according to a new poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research."
— The Washington Post

"From the moment he launched his candidacy by attacking Mexican immigrants as criminals, President Trump has returned time and again to language that is racially charged and, to many, insensitive and highly offensive."
— Los Angeles Times

"Trump, who is desperate to distract his base from his myriad failures of policy, from health care to immigration, is perfectly capable of devising his racist rhetoric all on his own."
— The New Yorker

"Trump, rather than seeking to end the controversy, worked at length to fan it. Even after Obama released his “long-form” birth certificate, meanwhile, Trump continued to spread birther innuendo. The statement is at once a welcome recognition and also obviously too little, too late, after Trump spent five years fanning the racist conspiracy theory."
— The Atlantic

"World leaders, leading newspapers, and celebrities have used unprecedented language to describe a possible future president: "Racist", "repellent", "ignorant"."
— BBC

Except most WP:reliable sources do not explicitly call him a racist. I appreciate your desire to call what you perceive as a spade for a spade, but at the same time, you have to be realistic about what is going to pass through Wikipedia's editorial neutrality filter and what just isn't no matter how much you advocate for it. Mind you, I think there's WP:WEIGHT for some mention of the racial element in the lead (I would not have endorsed the proposal to the extent I did above, if not for that) but I think you do more damage than good to Mr. X's proposal when you make comments like the above that seem flippant in light of the serious WP:NPOV concerns here and which, even beyond that, show a certain degree of impatient indifference with the more conservative [in editorial, not political philosophy terms] views of other editors here. You need to win these people over, not belittle their concerns, which are a lot more legitimate than the short-shrift you are giving them above.
And look, I am by no means a WP:BLP stalwart; I often feel (and voice the opinion) that the BLP precautionary principle is over-exercised to reductio ad absurdium extremes. But this is not one of those cases. We're talking about the president of the United States and the world's most controversial human being rolled into one. And while it's appropriate to predicate that analysis in the sources, the number of sources here is massive, so cherry picking is a real concern--because whether you think he is the second coming or the anti-christ (and I'm quite sure there are tens of millions of people who think he is literally either of those things, let alone figuratively) you can find a decent number of sources which align with an extreme view of any action he takes. We must therefore take great care and exercise a high degree of editorial caution in things we say about this controversial man which are themselves controversial.
Do I think it's properly WP:DUE to state that many people regard various of his statements as racist? Yes, that would be my favoured approach. Do I think that we'll probably have to settle, at least as far as the lead is concerned, for saying some of his statements are received as "racially-charged"? Yeah, probably, but it's better than the big ol' nothing we got adressing this aspect of his notability right now. Do I think we're going to end up saying anything remotely like "A lot of people hold that Trump is a racist"? Not a chance. So let's keep the effort focused on options that exist within a middle ground that consensus may be able to access, and maybe shelve the "Are you kidding me, why is this so difficult?" type comments while we're still trying to get people on board for the idea that any statement in this area should exist in the lead? Snow let's rap 15:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: Could you try to respond to me again, more succinctly, without putting words in my mount -- "racist" -- when, as a matter of fact, I've repeatedly opposed using all kinds of labels to tag BLP subjects on various articles. Your good intentions and thoughtfulness are matched only by your disregard for my actual positions. Thanks. And PS the Chevalier thing is exactly brilliantly and incisively on point, and it further supports the RS narrative that this is Trump's style and manner of speech and that we needn't get into OR about where it comes from or even exactly how deeply considered or widely held it may be. His comments sound and feel racially-charged, which is the proposed article text, and this is not in dispute in RS accounts of his speech. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough: you haven't explicitly advocated for adding racist to the lead. To the extent that I mischaracterized your position, I am sorry. But at the same time, I hope you consider the major thrust of my comments, because I don't think it's particularly unreasonable that not everyone is on board for the racially charged language we want to add. Given the importance of the topic (this being the second most trafficked article on the encyclopedia), the test that Trump's controversial and divisive nature puts on any editor trying to parse neutrality issues, and the sheer amount of sourcing that has to be grappled with, I think it's understandable that reasonably intelligent editors might disagree on how to proceed and/or be inclined to move slow--sometimes even painfully slow.
Like you, I have a hard time understanding the perspective that responses to Trump's vocalness on racial issues are undue for the lead. But I suspect that to the extent that "obvious" changes for the better are slow be effectuated here, it has less to do with a pro-Trump bias and more to do with editors who are used to sublimating their own perspectives to an objective, source-based, and WP:NPOV approach; as far as most experienced Wikipedians are concerned, "emotion is the mind killer" and because it's pretty difficult to stay indifferent to Trump (whatever else you say about him, that's gotta be true) I think most editors working on this page probably find themselves triple and quadruple checking themselves (and everyone else) before supporting anything, just because the man looms large in the mind as a topic that engenders a certain amount of emotional response--which causes most Wikivets to adopt a reflexive extra high level of caution. That's my theory anyway. And if it's true, it's a good instinct that we shouldn't even want to push back against too much. Anyway, I will continue to support adding some discussion of the race issue in the lead, but I think it's going to take some time and we have to approach it (and some other issues here) with a long-haul mentality. Snow let's rap 18:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
First, thanks.
I think compromise is a bad model for resolving the kind of dispute that's mounted in response to simple description or conveyance of mainstream narratives with respect to Trump and some of his policies and related subjects. The reason is that a compromise rubric can easily be subverted by one party or the other staking out an unreasonable starting position. We have many good editors on the American Politics articles, but we also have others who are partisan, ignorant, willful or unable to interact respectfully with others. Any of those factors will result in a compromise that subverts WP policy. We have editors whose user space features pinups of Trump, sarcastic references to various policy issues -- "hello taxpayers! I am editor Z" and rants on all sorts of political talking points. As we know, editors who are trying to reflect the mainstream do not generally resort to this kind of stuff and don't come to edit with ideology in mind. Editors who are trying to insinuate minority or partisan views find it necessary to disrupt this shared work environment with bad behavior, denial of policy, or defective sourcing, because all those standards clearly invalidate the content they favor. It's pretty easy to spot such editors. They deflect and dissemble, they feign outrage at simple editing q+a, and they personalize discussions with disparagment and accusation. "Compromise" may end the pain temporarily, but in the long run it weakends the encyclopedia and ensures that this disruptive behavior, once rewarded, will continue.
The suggestion that Trump does not evoke racially-charged themes, emotions, statements, reactions -- all reported by the vast bulk of RS worldwide -- is unsupportable and we should not tolerate it. There's plenty of room for discussion as to placement, weight, detail, etc. but denial is disruption. It's the sort of thing we as a community do not tolerate. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:POVFIGHTER is my concise response to that, emphasis on its last sentence. ―Mandruss  23:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I have to tell you, that doesn't sound like very tenable long-term editorial philosophy to me. Whenever an editor wants to change content in a contentious area, they pretty have to do a two stage analysis; they must address (in this exact order) the following questions: 1) What is the most accurate way to represent this topic in fidelity with the sources? 2) Can I achieve a stable consensus that this is indeed the optimal approach to the content? With an important corollary to 2: If I can't get my ideal version adopted, what is the closest thing I can move the consensus towards without becoming unduly disruptive over the matter? Anyway, in this instance, we're not even talking about compromise so much as patience. So anyhow, I'll leave it at that: I've voiced the point I was seeking to. Snow let's rap 09:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
In case nobody noticed, I compiled a list of how sources describe Trump's racial attitudes. This one from The New York Times does a pretty good job of summing it up:

"Mr. Trump’s history of racially inflammatory episodes traces back to his first days in the public eye. "
— The New York Times

Perhaps this could be a starting point for crafting some wording.- MrX 🖋 11:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This proposal is ill-formed. As I noted minutes ago up thread (although I'm told my comments were misplaced), one ought to be extremely careful when debating a fragment of a sentence. It conceptually can be done, if the portion of the senates omitted would not bear on the issue but the discussion is doomed from the start if the omitted portion of the sentence is relevant to the issue. Oddly, the section where I was told I was out of line does contain the entire sentence, but the section where I apparently was supposed to contribute refers only to the fragment. The section continues that improper construction.

To be specific, you should not be discussing a sentence fragment such as ; many of his public statements were controversial or false. without noting the antecedent. This discussion is arguably worse. Not only does it omit the antecedent but it is suggesting replacing a sentence fragment with a full statement. Possibly that's warranted but one has to discuss what happens to the beginning of the sentence. Is it retained as a full sentence standing on its own? Or removed? Or something else?

Please start over and do it right. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you failed to observe that this discussion has evolved into how me might word a sentence (or more) that summarizes Trump's lifetime racial attitudes. That. Nothing else. In fact, the original discussion was clearly to remove the dated sentence fragment ("The idea would be to replace this:" and replace it with an entire sentence, which means we were never "discussing a sentence fragment".
The discussion has moved way past sentence fragments and controversies, and process, and editor behavior analysis. I don't know why something so basic and fundamental to how Wikipedia is supposed to work is so elusive. In any case, from now on I will simply start an RfC with specific proposed wording, and if that doesn't reach consensus, I will propose another with different wording. I'm convinced that we will eventually be able to bring the lead up to date, provided that editors can focus on the task at hand.- MrX 🖋 17:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why something so basic and fundamental to how Wikipedia is supposed to work is so elusive. I concur. I thought proposals for edits were fairly basic. Fairly sure I've seen advice somewhere suggesting that a well-formed edit request is in the form of please change "A" to "B" where "A" represents the existing wording and "B" represents the desired wording. Wikipedia:Edit_requests Seems relevant but isn't as clear as I would like. Perhaps we need to add advice that says that "A" should generally be an entire sentence. If it represents a fragment, the editor proposing the change should read very carefully to make sure that the remainder of the sentence would not change the views of any of the voters. It would not have occurred to me that if the proposal is to change a portion of the sentence to a full sentence that one ought to also I discuss what happens to the rest of the sentence but maybe that's needed as well. Yes, I'm a bit off topic, but I've looked at three different request for edits in the last few minutes, two of which were poorly formed and the only one which was well-formed I was told I was improperly contributing to. This is basic stuff. Why is it so hard?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Specifically, if a consensus is reach that the fragment following His campaign received extensive free media coverage; should be converted to some standalone sentence, what happens to the beginning of the sentence? Does the semicolon get changed to a period and it become a full sentence? Does it go away? I don't see any discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Donald Trump talk page where even the simplest discussion quickly goes off the rails. To recap: This is not an edit request. It is not a proposal. It's not a process discussion. It is not a place to proclaim ones opposition to change. It is not a place to police other editors. It is "seeking input on how to phrase the following sentence for an upcoming RfC". A couple of editors actually contributed that that objective.- MrX 🖋 17:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Fair point, I did miss that you are trying to workout wording for an RFC as opposed to an edit request. However, my impression is that an RFC, even more than a simple edit request, has to be well-formed. So my advice, that talking about converting a portion of the sentence to a full sentence without mentioning what would happen to the beginning of the sentence is problematic, and ought to be addressed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you drop the word "perceived" and if you do use it, drop the passive voice. First enough sources state this, that you should just state the statements are racially charged. If you are going to use the word perceived, tell the reader who perceives it.Casprings (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement removal

Already being discussed in an earlier thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The third paragraph of the introductory section states "many of his public statements were controversial or false", which isn't necessarily true. This seems a bit biased, and knowing Wikipedia is a place that should be 100% free of any bias, this statement should be removed or re-worded. 108.30.110.252 (talk) 9 July 2018

Maybe it's asking too much to expect editors new to an article to do a little poking around in its archives before posting. I don't know. But a quick scan of the table of contents? See #"many of his public statements were controversial or false" above. ―Mandruss  01:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased toward reliable sources, not toward article subjects. TFD (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
That shouldn't matter. Wikipedia is supposed to (if not, it should be) unbiased towards both sources and subjects. Just because most people (including me) hate him, it shouldn't exist on the page without a reliable source. It's unsourced, by the way. 108.30.110.252 (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it was intended to characterize the cites situation generally rather than a close paraphrase of just one cite. Could a rephrase help the concern ? "many of his his public statements were criticized as controversial or false" seems able to find cites about controversial statements, and seperately cites that ping parts as false. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Improper semicolon? Lack of citation?

The article summary states: "His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false." I don't see any connection between these two ideas, and I don't think they should be joined by a semicolon. A period seems more appropriate. Additionally, the latter claim (that many of his statements were false) seems very bold and politically charged. I feel uncomfortable leaving that and not mentioning that something so bold requires a source. It feels like a political statement, rather than a statement of encyclopedic fact. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This issue is currently being discussed here. Trump tells falsehoods constantly, and there is no need to water that statement of fact down. The lede does not have citations, because everything in it is a summary of the content in the body of the article (which is fully cited). If you require additional proof that Trump lies constantly, consider this article from Saturday that says that according to historians, Trump is responsible for "an unprecedented avalanche of serial lying." (source: "Trump has said 1,340,330 words as president. They’re getting more dishonest, a Star study shows") -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
A fair amount off into hyperbole ranting and vague assertions there. Suggesting stick to things for this article of biographical importance which have WEIGHT and are factual, and not so much covering what spin is put out from media or politicians. This is supposed to be a BLP. But thanks for bringing in TheStar. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: A fine example of a completely useless comment, Mark. The "hyperbole" was from a reliable source, there were no "vague assertions", and after exhaustive consensus-building discussion we have already established the biographical importance of Trump's economy with the truth. The Star is providing hard statistical data, so it is an extremely useful source. Maybe think before you blurt out something unnecessarily inflammatory in future? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Scjessey Actually, my message was that you should do that very thing. You went OFFTOPIC a bit, into hyperbolic/ranty, I called it and suggested put more focus to Biographical, Weight, and factual. The false claim “falsehoods constantly” is hyperbolic, whether your words or from your choosing to repeat a source being hyperbolic. The “no need to water” is a vague assertion by metaphor. Neither were in discussion topics of semicolon or if a cite was needed. Further false hyperbolic assertion on lede that “everything in it” is summary, as if Talk does not currently have several threads about editing lead or past consensus and past odd edits. Moving on you got more ranty at now “lies” constantly, and then bolding a flamboyant metaphor quote. Not on topic of semicolon and cites, and not factual BLP useful. The Star gives a diversity benefit and has transparency that others lack — somebody other than the usual NYT/CNN/Washington Post — but it is not “hard statistical data” when it is counting subjective calls and about inaccuracies. Oh, and “think” did happen, so “maybe” and “blurt” are two more inaccuracies here — which if you were Trump would be counted. Anyway, the key point is you went OFFTOPIC and ranted a bit, not unknown here, but I suggest that is a bad habit and best to call someone back when it happens. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Ikjbagl - I think they mean his campaign received extensive free media coverage by making outrageous statements. There were some voiced opinions that chasing ratings made for giving him about $1.9 Billion in free publicity. Though it seems part of a dubious opinion or framing, seems like denial at times. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"many of his public statements were controversial or false"

No support for proposed change. Stay with A. — JFG talk 04:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See [5] (unclear, potentially misleading and unnecessary). Should it say (A) "many of his public statements were controversial or false" or (B) "many of his public statements were false"

B "false" zzz (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Extensively discussed in three discussions linked at #Current consensus item 7. I see no reason to revisit the issue at this point. ―Mandruss  08:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't see any discussion of whether to remove "controversial" in "controversial or false". The discussion was about whether to use "false". Please !vote or revert your edit [6]. zzz (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Signedzzz: If you think a word must be disputed before it has consensus, you're sadly mistaken. If the word "controversial" wasn't specifically debated in those discussions, it's because nobody had a problem with it. The entire sentence was open for discussion, and the entire sentence has consensus. I won't be reverting my revert. If other editors wish to revisit the issue, they are entitled to do so, but the sentence stays as is until there is a new consensus to change it. ―Mandruss  10:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A for two reasons: (1) Many of Trump's statements have been controversial, but not false, and (2) The exact wording we have is the result of an exhaustive discussion and solid consensus. No need to change now, although perhaps in the future we can expand it: "many of his public statements were controversial or false, and frequently described as 'lies'." -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
What do you think "controversial" means in this case? Do you think it is clear to the reader? It isn't to me. zzz (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • comment "Controversial" is a euphemism in this context and conveys no specific meaning to our readers. What RS state is that Trump's statements are misleading or false, and factcheckers worldwide have identified an unprecedented rate of such statements. We also have many events related to this, such as Kellyanne/Spicer's "alternative facts" that has entered the English lexicon, and the abundance of RS reporting that those around Trump feel compelled to support his misrepresentations for fear of reprisal in the alternative. And we have numerous reports of egregious and widely noted and mocked instances of such support, e.g. Chief Kelly's lies about Rep. Kelly [7], Doc. Ronny Jackson's press briefing debacle [8], and others. So without discarding the valid RfC that received broad participation and withstood various denials of these facts, we should certainly consider updating it with additional text, now that we have the benefit of even more data and RS coverage and discussion of it. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment We shouldn't be saying this in Wikipedia's voice at all. "...controversial and false" are fine, but not in Wiki-voice - which is what's currently there. Needs to be reworded in a neutral fashion. Otherwise, Wikipedia is making a pronouncement about his statements. That's the opposite of what policy states in WP:WikiVoice at WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." -- ψλ 16:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • If we go that way - let's call it Plan B - then we would need to accurately reflect the bulk of mainstream reports, which say much much harsher things than the current article text and are apt to seem rather jarring. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know what purpose is served by saying that a partisan figure's statements have been controversial; that pretty much comes with the territory. However, Trump's frequent mendacity is unusual, even for an American partisan; widely confirmed by reliable sources; rarely if ever denied by reliable sources; and even confirmed in some writing attributed to Trump himself (the "honest exaggeration" stuff). There's no good reason to leave that aspect of his reputation/character out of articles where it is relevant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • comment The previous discussions have really focused on the word “false” because that word is controversial, and the word “controversial” isn’t controversial. Frankly, these are two quite different concepts and I don’t think they belong in the same sentence. Lots of politicians take controversial positions. Lots of politicians have an iffy relationship with truth. But, reliable sources tell us that Trump is nearly in a class by himself. Also, I think they are treated separately by the sources. So, yes it could be argued that this is a separate discussion. But, is it important enough for another RfC, during which some editors will start arguing about “false” again? O3000 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A – This has been discussed to death, and nothing has changed in Trump's communication style, or in evaluations of his truthiness. — JFG talk 21:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    Talk about begging the question... What's changed is 1. Documentation of hundreds of significant false statements by factcheckers in many countries, and 2. Having been in office now for 18 months, Trump is now lying about his actions as US President and about the actions and policies of the US Government. RS reports have intensified because they find that these misrepresentations have vastly more far-reaching significance than personal boasts and false claims about personal prowess or past business accomplishment. Please review RS analysis and reporting and offer an alternative that reflects the mainstream view. SPECIFICO talk 12:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, and the qualification of Trump's statements as president have also been discussed to death, with the same outcome of "Gee, he's the same guy who campaigned. Yay! For shame! (pick one)". No appetite to revisit the issue. — JFG talk 14:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    You're of course under no obligation to present reasoned arguments that address the central issues, but the !votes of such editors will have little/no weight in the close of this matter. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    That's not a change, it's more of the same. I oppose revisiting every time he lies about something new and those lies get factchecked. Further, if this is so earth-shatteringly important, it also was before the OP brought it up, so why did you wait for him to raise the issue? ―Mandruss  15:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The change is that he is now in power, per my comment above. RS report the far-reaching societal, military, and economic policy consequences of his lies, whereas pre-election this was a personality or behavioral trait. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A. I agree with others above. Many of his statements were controversial but not outright false. Kerberous (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A per longstanding and many-times discussed consensus, as well as per JFG, Scjessey, and Kerberous. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • MelanieN, do you feel that "controversial" is related to "false" except in cases where the controversy is related to the lie itself? I continue to read "controversial" here as some kind of euphemism or equivocation. After all, political speech is largely controversial by its nature. Otherwise it wouldn't be political, it would be operating procedures or statute. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Controversial and false are two different things. His speech is noteworthy for both. --MelanieN alt (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree they are two different things. However, I think the current text suggests that the controversy is about whether they are true or false. But in fact, to continue with the idea that they're 2 different things, the controversial ones are ones like "I'm calling off war games" or "there are good people on both sides" -- but the juxtaposition of these 2 things in the article text suggests that the controversies were things like whether Obama is an alien, whether he had the largest inaugural crowd ever, and other demonstrably false statements. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A as per above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A per MelanieN alt. ―Mandruss  02:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I'm late, but Wikipedia is supposed to (if not, it should be) unbiased towards both sources and subjects. Just because most people (including me) hate him, it shouldn't exist on the page without a reliable source. And it's unsourced, so there technically isn't any proof given regarding him saying false stuff. Although it's obviously true, something like that needs a source, which is currently lacking. 108.30.110.252 (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is about a sentence in the lede. Of course it is unsourced in the lede; the lede is supposed to summarize the article and generally does not include sources. But it is well sourced in the article, see Donald Trump#False statements. We would certainly not include something like this in the article without significant reliable sourcing. --MelanieN alt (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Possibly A with mod - might "criticized as controversial or false" convey things more neutrally and more accurately as something from a source rather than saying it in wikivoice? The article text actually does not seem to support "controversial" at all, though there exist articles about that. The article text also does not support "false" as being significant enough to be in LEAD. Cites supporting "Controversial" are separate from those supporting "false", so this may need a cite at each of those two words. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion for the lede, not the body. Wiki voice is perfectly acceptable when faced with an undeniable, universally agreed upon truth. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I think this is ready to be closed with a fairly substantial support for "A". -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


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

RfC #2: Should the lead include a sentence about Trump's racial stance?

WP:SNOWBALL opposition. Even the two respondents who support it in spirit still oppose the "racially charged" wording.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per this RFC above, should the wording of the sentence about Trump's racially charged comments not use the term "perceived" and simply state that the statements were racially charged? Specifically, something like:

Many of his comments and actions were racially charged.

Sources

"If it were a one-time comment, an inadvertent insensitivity, it would still have stirred a firestorm. But Mr. Trump has said so many things on so many occasions that have rubbed the raw edges of race in America that they have raised the larger issue. "
— The New York Times

"The president’s approach to race has by many accounts damaged America’s standing in the world and complicated his foreign policy."
— The New York Times

"Mr. Trump’s history of racially inflammatory episodes traces back to his first days in the public eye. "
— The New York Times

"As he became more of a public figure, Mr. Trump waded into racially charged controversies that periodically erupted in New York. "
— The New York Times

"Trump has a long record as a provocateur on matters of race and ethnicity."
— Fortune

"You don’t even have to look into Trump’s heart to see his racism. You only have to look at all the things he’s done and said over the years – from the early Seventies, when he settled with the Justice Department over accusations of housing discrimination, to Monday, when just hours after his speech news broke he is considering pardoning anti-immigrant sheriff Joe Arpaio."
— Rolling Stone

"He has built a legacy of race-baiting throughout his career – from his apartment buildings in the outer boroughs right into the White House."
— Rolling Stone

"President Donald Trump’s long history with race is complicated."
— PBS

"While Trump’s actions have landed on both sides of racial currents, his public record depicts a man who most often moves in one direction: overlooking racial sensitivity and concerns in the name of fighting “political correctness.”"
— PBS

"Most Americans think President Trump is a racist, according to a new poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research."
— The Washington Post

"From the moment he launched his candidacy by attacking Mexican immigrants as criminals, President Trump has returned time and again to language that is racially charged and, to many, insensitive and highly offensive."
— Los Angeles Times

"Trump, who is desperate to distract his base from his myriad failures of policy, from health care to immigration, is perfectly capable of devising his racist rhetoric all on his own."
— The New Yorker

"Trump, rather than seeking to end the controversy, worked at length to fan it. Even after Obama released his “long-form” birth certificate, meanwhile, Trump continued to spread birther innuendo. The statement is at once a welcome recognition and also obviously too little, too late, after Trump spent five years fanning the racist conspiracy theory."
— The Atlantic

"World leaders, leading newspapers, and celebrities have used unprecedented language to describe a possible future president: "Racist", "repellent", "ignorant"."
— BBC

Casprings (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. WP:RS support that the statements were racially charged. We should not weaken that by using the term "perceived". We should reflect what the sources say when it is supported as strongly as it is here.Casprings (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Not the right words "Racially charged" is nebulous and unclear. It's almost the type of euphemism Trump would use himself. Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear. Plenty of racists support Trump, so who says things that will encourage them. He is also not too interested in being politically correct. Not sure how that can be written in a couple of words other than speaking of populism and pandering to the masses. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the use of "racially charged" per WP:EUPHEMISM. It's just a watered-down euphemism for "racist". [9] GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose What a difficult situation this is. Not sure how to frame it but the wording suggested here is not satisfactory. Sadly, as I have mentioned before, we are limited by a polarizing media that oftentimes fails us in our efforts to remain dispassionate and objective. We do not have to follow their oftentimes very unobjective cues.--MONGO (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Which sources describe it differently? Why not post them. Then we can compare sources. Personally, I think the language above is neutral.Casprings (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You may see it as neutral. I'm not so sure, because I'm not sure what it means. Can you provide a well sourced, non-ambiguous, unarguable definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose per MONGO. Couldn't have expressed it better myself. -- ψλ 00:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as a second choice. This wording is supported by many sources, but I am somewhat less comfortable without the word "perceived" being included.- MrX 🖋 02:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose just plain awkwardly. As an idiomatic matter, the phrase "racially charged" is usually used in circumstances that suggest a multiplicity of views on the behaviour or comments being described by the phrase. So combining this word sense with an objective statement just creates a situation of confused semantics, in my opinion. It becomes are once a peculiarly worded matter and also suggests a kind of concrete implication of racial bias that the original version proposed above does not. I think this may have been what MONGO was talking about when they said it was difficult to frame, and it took me a moment to work it out too. Despite how subtle the change is from the above proposal, this variation just feels inappropriate and inaccurate. Snow let's rap 04:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - don’t be silly. The whole idea is failing LEAD and RACIST, and was apparently submitted without any specifics so now is just fishing ??? Think a thread about restricting LEAD edits is needed here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per MONGO's reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjbagl (talkcontribs) 17:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose largely per MONGO's reasoning, and per my conclusions drawn above, at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_Should_the_lead_include_a_sentence_about_Trump's_racial_stance?. --HunterM267 talk 17:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest procedural close – It is very confusing to have two RfCs open on a variant of the same phrase. First get consensus whether some content should be included, then perhaps rework this consensus to update the wording. — JFG talk 19:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
No such procedure. There's no confusion. Let's give other editors and opportunity to participate in the consensus building process. - MrX 🖋 19:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Consensus-building efforts should precede RfCs; prior discussion helps decide what should be submitted to the wider community. — JFG talk 20:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
We must keep in mind WP:RFCBEFORE. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we already did that. Remember? Now we're having an RfC.- MrX 🖋 22:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is much better than saying "considered racially-charged". However, there are still issues. "Racially-charged" is not commonly used in RS, and it's simply not the best term. For example, "racially charged term" is called an "ethnic slur" on Wikipedia, and "racial charging" is called "racism". This proposal is very vague; it couldn't be more vague. The sources also seem very vague (at least the snippets that are quoted above). Are we talking about Trump's "racially-charged" (related to race) statements about the black unemployment rate [10] or about his August 15 abandonment of his previous condemnations of the KKK [11]? Thus, asserting that he did/said plenty of "racially-charged" things is no more useful than asserting that he is a racist person (both imply his actions are racially driven). Also, a lot of these sources are actually opinions, such as "majority of Americans" and "celebrities". wumbolo ^^^ 12:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only makes it worse dropping the "perceived". So we go from commentators calling him racists to wikipedia calling him racist? Not an improvement. PackMecEng (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There is vagueness here, but we have yet to see a better overview of the relevant words and actions, and there is bound to be some information loss in a summary. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 02:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Moral support although I don't like the euphemistic-sounding "racially charged". "Racist" is more straightforward. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – That's cherry-picked opinion, albeit a very widespread opinion. — JFG talk 06:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: "racially charged" is certainly vague and arguably POV, but "perceived" just makes it worse, insinuating that it's just a "perception" and that Trump's remarks weren't really racially charged. Better to simply attribute this view to recognized reliable source(s), such as "described by The New York Times as 'inflammatory' with regard to race" or a similar phrase. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As others said it's an opinion. An unsupported one at that. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • With the various sources listed above, it's hardly "unsupported". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Those sources are just fake news. ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroterion (talkcontribs) 00:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • My vote stands. I see a lot of New York Times, the former editor of which confessed to carrying around a little doll of Obama in her purse that she pulls out whenever she feels unsafe and needs a friend. The rest? Rolling Stone, PBS, Atlantic, Washington Post...uhh, yeah. Let's check sources that aren't far-left propaganda tools of the Democratic party and see if they agree. If the sources agree, we can go ahead and take out "perceived". Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC))
  • "far-left propaganda tools of the Democratic party"? Really? Ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
It's funny to see supporters of Putin, the former Soviet Communist KGB agent and Russian tyrant who hates the US, and who glorifies Stalin, talk about those upstanding Democrats and Republicans who denounce Putin and Russian aggression against the US and other western countries, as "far-left propaganda." In reality, Trump and his supporters are the ones promoting positions traditionally considered (by Republicans and Democrats alike) far-left, such as supporting Russia, the Russian regime of the KGB agent and Russian aggression against western countries. --Tataral (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with your conclusion that "perceived" should stay, but you should do a thorough read of WP:Reliable sources; we don't insert ourselves into evaluating sources with conformity with our analysis of where they fit on a political spectrum. That would be WP:Original research through the back door, and is most assuredly not a part of how we determine reliable sources on this project. If you want to go to our WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and argue that PBS and the Washington post are non-reliable sources for reporting on presidential affairs because they are "lefties", please have at it, but be prepared to have what I am telling you now repeated to you. Snow let's rap 03:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say the sources aren't reliable. I just mean it's a little suspicious that the only sources I saw in that drop down box are de facto press releases from the DNC. If you want to make the case that an allegation is factual and not an opinion, I'm going to need sources with a wide range of partisan leanings, not just the hard, hard left. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a perfectly reasonable thing for you to demand for the purposes of being personally convinced of something, for your own purposes, if that's the litmus test you wish to adopt. But it's not a standard which jives with how we make content and sourcing decisions here. In order for something to receive coverage, it need only establish WP:WEIGHT in the sources. It would be an unworkable standard to say "we can only cite this fact to this source if everyone agrees that it is not too far to the right". That would only shift the terrain of the fights which WP:NOR prohibits slightly to the side, still allowing for our editors to interject their subjective views into the article via proxy OR battles over sourcing, locking every article talk page into contests of wills. The entire point of our NOR/RS standards is that they remove our idiosyncratic reasoning (and therefore our egos and our biases, as much as is possible anyway) from the equation and gives us a more objective standard by which to resolve disputes that would otherwise just go back-and-forth ad nauseum between varying subjective stances--and both functions would be entirely destroyed if you and I could cherry-pick which sources are reliable using our subjective analysis of their political (or other) leanings. Which is why, as a principal of longstanding community consensus, we aren't allowed to do that for editorial purposes. Just to reiterate though, I share your opinion that "perceived" should not be removed--the result would not be a neutral and accurate reflection of the sources, in my opinion. Snow let's rap 04:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest that anyone who believes the BBC (!), The Atlantic (one of whose senior editors was a speechwriter for George W. Bush), The New York Times, PBS, etc. are in the habit of publishing "de facto press releases from the DNC" as part of "the hard, hard left" is not qualified to judge matters of reliable sourcing on this or any article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't even use sources from the "hard, hard left" here, as they, just as with the "hard, hard right", are too fringe to be considered RS. The DNC is to the left of the GOP, but it's not "hard, hard left". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Sang - I just said that it's not a matter of reliable sourcing. It's a matter of which party's platform the "reliable" sources are advocating. I am reiterating that the hard left sources are fine to use "perceived". If you guys want to remove it, then find some centrist and conservative sources that agree that Trump is using racially charged language. Until then, I made my vote so let's move on. I don't care if a conservative worked for the Atlantic or if you put an exclamation point in parentheses after BBC. Both "news" corporations envision a utopia of liberalism and it shouldn't surprise anyone who follows media that they are doing the work of Tom Perez and toeing the line of the DNC and the liberal extremist agenda. If any of you want to resume this discussion, maybe we can go to a private chat room or something. I'm not going to justify every single vote I make, and I don't have to. And yeah, Snow. That's the litmus test I adopt for voting. If I'm convinced, then I'll vote Include. If not, then I won't. If someone feels that exclusively left-wing articles written by disciples of Barack Obama are enough to say that Trump uses "racially charged language", then vote Include. It's not enough for me, though. My bar is higher than that for such inflammatory language. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
No, I fear I failed to impress upon you the distinction I was trying to highlight; if that is a standard that suffices for you in your personal life, off the project, that's fine. This is not the place to debate such personal standards (in fact, per WP:NOTAFORUM, it's disallowed). But if you want your opinion to be taken seriously in an !vote, you need to predicate your arguments in sourcing standards that are actually accepted by community consensus. And "these guys are too far to the left, by my personal barometer" is no such opinion. All it does is betray your bias and make you an easy target for those who want to dismiss everything you say, while it provides absolutely no policy support for your preferred approach to the content, and will be discounted for that purpose. No editor has to account for your personal feelings about the bias of a source--that's policy. See, for example Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources, from one of our five pillar policies: "Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone...Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." (emphasis added).
If you will take me at my word that I mean this as sincere advice and not just criticism, I really think you need to slow down a bit and come to recognize that you have some homework to do on the complexities of this project, what binding community consensus looks like with regard to our sourcing standards, and how to effectively make those arguments. Because right now, you just look an WP:SPA with a political agenda who has come here to push their notion of WP:The truth, and not someone who is WP:HERE to improve the encyclopedia and is willing to take the time to learn how to do that in conformity with the policies that govern our content. Nobody can require you to make a content argument that actually reflects community consensus, but until you start reading up and doing so, your opinions are just not going to carry any weight with your fellow editors and there's even a possibility that people will start to accuse you of being WP:disruptive by way of WP:IDHT. Usually new editors are able to ease into these rules more slowly and in lower-stress environments, but you have thrown yourself in the crucible by choosing to exclusively edit highly charged and highly trafficked articles under WP:Discretionary sanctions, so your learning curve will need to be accelerated if you want to contribute productively while you adapt to the project's way of analyzing these editorial issues. And for the record, I wouldn't be spending my valuable time telling you all of this if I didn't think there was a chance that you are someone capable of learning it and using the principles to your advantage, rather than attempting to ignore and charge through our community standards and getting nothing accomplished as a result. Snow let's rap 06:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
To paraphrase the above, you can think whatever you want about people "toeing the line of the DNC and the liberal extremist agenda". All of which is irrelevant to the actual standards used on Wikipedia. Vague accusations of "bias" may be grist for the mill in certain corners of the Internet, but that's not how we do things here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

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

personal details in top right info box on article

Is there a deliberate reason that there aren't any particular details in the top right info box for example I came here too find out how tall Mr Trump is and hoped the info box would have some personal stats. Any thoughts article editors? Thanks 78.145.51.144 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! It is always lovely to encounter someone else who appreciates trivia! I think the places on Wikipedia where you are most likely to find this sort of information prominently mentioned are in the leads of articles or in the Did you know section of the main page. But even then, I think it is likely to be given prominent mention only if it is part of what makes the subject of the article notable. (See Robert Wadlow, for example.) Under other circumstances information of this sort is considered great to feature prominently on, say, an entertainment web site but not so much on a web site with an encyclopedic format.
I hope this helps!
-- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 22:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
You can go to Google Search, type "how tall is donald trump" in the search box, and press Enter. Here's what you get when you do that. But don't believe everything you read on the internets. ―Mandruss  03:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, there's an option even closer to home: Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. Snow let's rap 06:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Their source is Dr. Ronnie Jackson’s report that Trump had grown an inch and weighed 3 pounds more than last year.Confused.png Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
For good measure, Trump being a reality competition personality, you can look him up on IMDb: 6.2" (188 cm). He seems to have spent a lot of time in zero gravity since his last visit to the DMV in 2012 which would explain the growth spurt (NYT, Guardian) in his last medical exam. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump remarks in Trump-Putin press conference

There is support for a short mention of the Helsinki summit in this article and there is already a relatively stable 3-sentence paragraph in the article under #Foreign Policy #Russia. ~Awilley (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article needs to be updated with Trump's shocking performance in Helsinki, which sources are describing as treasonous, disgraceful, and "played like a fiddle".[12][13][14][15] Would anyone like to take a stab at it?- MrX 🖋 20:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's not play the "promote the most ridiculous comments" game that the media appears to be playing. Approximately nothing new happened, but there are plenty of "former government officials" willing to give hyperbolic quotes on Twitter. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The US President while standing next to an adversary who attacked the United States and continues to attack the United States refused to condemn the adversary or even acknowledge the assessment of his own intelligence community that the adversary was behind the attack on the US. It's widely been described as one of the most shocking, embarrassing and disgusting performances by an American president, and that's just by Republican partisans alone, never mind what foreign policy experts and Democrats are saying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sufficiently familiar with this subject to weigh in on its inclusion in any article at this time, but wouldn't such an addition more appropriately belong on a different article, like Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration or Presidency of Donald Trump? --HunterM267 talk 20:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
You could make that argument about reality TV shows and golf courses too, but the article is supposed to comprehensively cover Trump's life. This is not a gaffe. It's a tacit signal from Trump to Putin that he can go ahead and fuck with our elections. It's not something that one would expect to hear from any American, least of all the President who is legally obligated to defend the United States. I can't even believe I have to explain this. - MrX 🖋 20:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with power~enwiki's assessment pretty much exactly. PackMecEng (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I have a better idea. Let's not normalize the insanity. This is a very big deal.- MrX 🖋 20:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, and we're going to write an encyclopedia article about Trump (and not something else, such as a picture of a clown on a unicycle), regardless of what "normalizing" occurs as a result. In the long eye of history, I think this summit / press conference will rate somewhere below the Donald Trump baby balloon in terms of relevance. There may not be a single person in the entire United States whose opinion on "Trump-Russia" things is genuinely changed by this event. And regardless, discussion should focus on what was actually discussed, not the optics of a press-conference, (Perhaps the status of the Golan Heights was discussed? I don't think reliable sources have covered this yet, perhaps demonstrating it's too soon to discuss it here). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
A normal everyday headline at BBC News: "Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit."[16] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
When considered with the dozens of times he has said Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was "fake news" or a "witch hunt" in Washington DC or on Twitter? Yes, yes it is an everyday headline. The reasons why that is so are relevant to this article, the most recent example is not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, you want the article to make abundantly clear that Trump rejects that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and that he rejects his own intelligence community's assessments and his government's indictments against Russian officials? Because the article currently does not do that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
We seem to be down to one section on Russian interference, under "Investigations". It does seem to be quite a bit out of date. I very much want to avoid the day-to-day noise here (please no mention of Strzok), but something about Trump's continued statements in opposition to other members of his administration is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
He's not the president of Israel! And please don't presume to lecture editors who have far more experience building the encyclopedia than you do. - MrX 🖋 20:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Putin definitely mentioned the Golan Heights in the press conference. I expect they discussed several matters other than Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections in their two hour meeting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with both Power~enwiki and PackMecEng beginning with: "Let's not play the "promote the most ridiculous comments" game that the media appears to be playing. Approximately nothing new happened, but there are plenty of "former government officials" willing to give hyperbolic quotes on Twitter." -- ψλ 21:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I wrote a paragraph on it at the Presidency of Donald Trump article quickly after the Summit concluded.[17] It was of course turned into obfuscatory drivel by Winkelvi shortly thereafter. A version of the text certainly belongs in the Donald Trump article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Can we please not have any "but of course that guy fucked it up" style comments directed towards your fellow editors? This article is under WP:discretionary sanctions and that is pretty much a WP:PA, or close enough that an admin is not going to want to debate it with you if someone takes the matter to them. Snow let's rap 22:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Are we going to stop with chasing headlines some day? I'm thinking of formally advancing the suggestion once discussed at EEng's outstanding talk page: wait three days before adding any article on current political events. — JFG talk 20:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
User:JFG and others — I put a thread above here asking for inputs about restricting edits for the Lead at least. I would think the non-lead sections less critical, but guides for the lead section might be applicable elsewhere. Seems unlikely that any will come of it, but worth an ask. Markbassett (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Are we going to stop trying to trivialize and dismiss every major action of this subject as if it never happened? I'm not suggesting that this needs to be added this instant. I'm strongly suggesting that we consider including after a few days when we have some perspective.- MrX 🖋 21:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
"Are we going to stop trying to trivialize and dismiss every major action of this subject as if it never happened?" <-- apparently that is EXACTLY what the tactic is. Every time Trump does something significant, but that reflects badly on him, his gatekeepers argue that it's "trivial" and we need to "wait months" to include it, no matter how many reliable sources you throw at them. It's ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
A bio article needs far more than a few days perspective in my opinion. And maybe a week for the Presidency article. ―Mandruss  21:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: I'm perfectly fine with including something "after a few days when we have some perspective". We agree Face-smile.svgJFG talk 21:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Nobody's opinion of what Trump said today is going to change with "perspective". It has been universally condemned by Republicans, Democrats, diplomats, the intelligence services, the media, and just about any random dude you pull off the street and ask. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. We are not in competition with newspapers for readership, so there is no rush to print. The emotion present in this discussion could not be more clear. Emotion clouds judgment and it would be prudent to let some time pass before we consider inclusion of related content in this article. ―Mandruss  21:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an online encyclopedia, and yes, please try not be so emotional Mandruss. It's very upsetting to me. :-D- MrX 🖋 22:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think you need to be careful about the word "universal" there. There is no universal where Donald Trump is concerned: he could sign a "compulsory second-hand merkins for federal employees" executive order tomorrow and there would be a substantial number of people defending it, including reliable sources. I have to agree with Mandruss and others above: this is WP:CRYSTAL at this point and its senseless to start debating the ultimate form of our coverage here until we see how the WP:WEIGHT of the sources ultimately balances out here; maybe on a lower traffic article we could throw something quasi-definitive up now and tweak it from there, but on this article it would just be setting things up for disruption. Does it bother me that we have to wait to cover these things until after the spin machine has had a chance to reframe everything? Yeah, more than a bit, but that's the reality you have to accept if you want to edit in controversial areas and still uphold WP:NPOV. Snow let's rap 21:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's easy to get emotional sound-bytes immediately following anything re: Trump. Getting those opinions is cheap and easy knee-jerk "news" (which is not really news at all). On the other hand, it's sign of integrity to wait to comment/report if you are one of the usual talking heads and pundits and even more so if you're media. Or an online encyclopedia that waits to see what will happen/develop in three days to a week. One is a real problem currently, one isn't. I'd rather be part of the solution than the problem. Let's not forget why WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM is policy. -- ψλ 21:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Reminds me of the outrage at the May 2017 disclosure of classified information to Russia because a TASS photographer had caught Lavrov and Trump laughing in the Oval Office, after Trump had made a "treasonous" disclosure of ISIS-related information. And called Comey a jerk or something. — JFG talk 22:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It's nothing like that actually.- MrX 🖋 22:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

While I don’t agree with some editors’ minimization of the event and I don’t think RECENTISM is a strong argument; I do think we need to wait just a day or two to see more responses. Recentism is a valuable supplement and should always be considered in documenting (or not) recent events. But, it obviously does not automatically exclude a recent event from entry in WP. If the San Andreas Fault ruptures and California breaks off the West Coast and sinks, we are allowed to mention it immediately. These remarks are obviously a major^2 event that will be included in this article and should be reasonably quickly. It will be added. Let us concentrate on the language. O3000 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Include per Mr. X. Coverage by WP:RS support it and clearly meets Wikipedia:10YT.Casprings (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion at present...Trump has smore than once said something and walked it back. Best we not seek headlines until the full story is told.--MONGO (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose At least let the ink dry before introducing these kind of hyperbolic statements. PackMecEng (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC) Accidental double vote. See below. PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Sorry about that, my mistake. Thanks for the catch! PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seriously, need to establish that minimum 48 hours have to elapse or something to stop the flighty posting of trivial and momentary things. And please remember this is his BLP -- so unless it changed his life, try flogging it over at the Presidency article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
This is neither trivia nor momentary. This line of argument is absurd.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include in some form. Coverage to date is sufficient to establish that one sentence won't be WP:UNDUE, especially given the dramatic reaction across the political spectrum. We can hash out exactly how to word it or whether to go beyond one sentence over time. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
"Dramatic reaction" is essentially the daily predictable outcome of Trump uttering anything. We must have stronger criteria to include news in BLP. There are other articles dedicated to the daily flow of events and pronouncements. — JFG talk 05:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
We do have criteria. They're called WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I don't see us creating a special set of policies simply because the subject is so anomalous. Faithfully reflect the sources and the article will reflect the best possible encyclopedic coverage of the subject.- MrX 🖋 13:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: ludicrous to try to jam something into the article before we even know what was discussed during the meeting.– Lionel(talk) 09:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
But this isn't a discussion about "what was discussed during the meeting" (and that we'll never know, since it was one on one, unless Putin has some tapes he'll leak). This is a discussion about what was said at the join press conference.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course the Helsinki summit needs to be included in one way or the other. Both in the body and in the lead. There is no question about that and there is no legitimate reason to oppose its inclusion, based on Wikipedia policies. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to omit this material and such comments must be ignored. This is an extremely well covered event, regarded as astonishing and highly significant by countless reliable sources. It's on a whole different level than the daily squabble he engages in domestically. He essentially sided with Putin, the Soviet Communist KGB agent and sworn enemy of the United States, in attacking his own country and the west, after also attacking the US' closest allies (in the alliance that the US founded and that has served US interests for nearly 70 years) in the days before, and was met with universal condemnation at home and in the rest of the western world. Reliable sources agree that this event will have serious consequences both geopolitically and in terms of international security, and for the US' role in the world and him personally. There is now a very serious and significant discussion of this event as an act of treason, which is a main theme in third party coverage of the event. Politically it's certainly the most significant thing he has done so far since he took office, and unless he does something even more extreme, this is what history will remember him for, much like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are remembered for having spied for Russia. --Tataral (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Politically it's certainly the most significant thing he has done so far since he took office. Silly me, I thought Trump would be forever remembered for his Muslim ban, the North Dakota pipeline, trampling over climate change, threatening to nuke North Korea, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and taking innocent children for a "shower". Damn was I off the mark![FBDB]JFG talk 13:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The North Dakota pipeline is trivial compared to placing his country on the wrong side of the ongoing Cold War, being totally in the pocket of his country's primary adversary and making enemies of his country's allies of the past 70 years. The other outrages, his Muslim ban and so on, while extremist far-right policies for which he has rightly been condemned, are not at the same level in the larger scheme of things. There is no doubt that in terms of historical significance his stance towards Russia is his main legacy; it's not limited to just what happened in Helsinki either. (Even Trump's own supporters, like Newt Gingrich, say what he did in Helsinki was "the most serious mistake of his presidency"[18]) --Tataral (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
How come we are not including his expulsion of 60 diplomats/spies and the closure of the Seattle consulate in his "stance towards Russia"? How about the Syrian attacks that reportedly killed a bunch of Russian soldiers? Shall we add this to the BLP? I don't think so. — JFG talk 20:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to include that material in the article, go ahead and propose the necessary changes. This discussion is concerned with Trump betraying his country in Helsinki, as most reliable sources see it. --Tataral (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Addition of the latest "The sky is falling". Give it a week any everyone will of forgotten this and moved onto the next drama. Just remember people, breath. PackMecEng (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Ummm, @PackMecEng:, you just !voted twice. Maybe telling others to "remember to breath(sic)" is not quite appropriate when you have trouble restraining yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries! PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @PackMecEng: "Just remember people, breath." I just brushed my teeth! It's not me!
Seriously though, there's no doubt this will be in the article. This is not something that will be "forgotten" unless Trump declares war or shoots someone in the face. But fear not, because it will probably take at least a week for us to figure out some language, thus giving us the needed historical perspective BLPs are supposed to have. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
It is certainly possible, I do not doubt that. Just over the time since he started to run almost every week a new super crisis breaks out about something or another. Then after another week the next one starts. Finally about 2 weeks after you almost never hear about it again. That cycle has been pretty consistent for over a year now. While again I could be mistaken, I rather doubt it. PackMecEng (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Huh. I'm trying to think of the last time a US president sided with the enemy dictator of a country that just attacked us, while simultaneously denigrating his own intelligence services and international allies. Nope, I can't think of one. Pretty sure it is unprecedented (or as Trump would say, unpresidented). I think this scandal has legs. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
So because Trump creates so many super crises, we can't include this one? I'm sorry, but that just not logical. All we need to do is examine the extent of coverage and follow it. When you have blue chip source seriously examining whether Russia has compromising information on Trump[19] or the Speaker of the House and member of the same party reminding the President that Russia is not an ally[20], then yes, the threshold of significance has been crossed.- MrX 🖋 13:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The Speaker and Trump have disagreed before and the Speaker has had to "scold" Trump before and vice versa.--MONGO (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
LOL! I'm sure Trump flinched with the ferocity of the scolding! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I see. So the Republican President of the United States and the Republican Speaker of the House disagree about whether Russia is an ally of the United States? Interesting. - MrX 🖋 14:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm yes two people from the same party disagree about something. Truly fascinating... PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
When one of these people is the president and the other the speaker of the House, yeah, it is. Stop trying to downplay it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
It happens in just about every administration. It is not special this time. PackMecEng (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
PackMecEng Please back that extraordinary claim by citing a source that says a sitting House Speaker and a sitting President of the same party have disagreed about whether another country is an ally of the United States. I'll wait.- MrX 🖋 15:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Eh sure I will humor you. There were a few times under Obama with Polosi. Politco for a quick search. Also under Bush, Hastert disagreed with him a few times to NBC. Extraordinary? Hardly. PackMecEng (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
"...by citing a source that says a sitting House Speaker and a sitting President of the same party have disagreed about whether another country is an ally of the United States."- MrX 🖋 21:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Only if you can find some that have them agreeing on a favorite house paint. You are missing the point, the statement was the two positions disagreeing about anything is not special or relevant. As you know they can and do disagree about many things, with this one no more notable than others. PackMecEng (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now I see this as a terrible embarrassment, but I don't see what to add. All the talk about whether or not Trump is an active agent of Putin, for instance, can't be dismissed IMHO, but it's way too speculative at this point to add. So, I'm really not sure what we could say about this here. It belongs on related articles (main presidency, foreign visits, Russian interference, etc.). I'm willing to reevaluate in the future if there's more found here, but otherwise it just looks like Trump's desire to stand up next to another leader in a photo op. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose its just the usual anti Trumpers who attack him no matter what he does last week they were attacking him for calling on NATO to spend more money to protect themselves from Russia and calling on Germany to stop paying Russia billions for oil and its the anti trump Brennan who was the head of the CIA at the time this was happening who did nothing to stop them if this press conference is treason than what kind of traitor is he and Obama who did nothing to stop it at the time עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    So Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, and the Wall Street Journal are anti Trumpers? - MrX 🖋 15:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    Funny, I don't see a proposal on this talk page about his statements about NATO. I don't see a proposal on this talk page to include anything about Germany and oil. And can. you. please. stop. it. with. the "WHATABOUTOBAMAHUHHUHHUH?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!" It's nonsense. And boorish.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We are not supposed to be writing a hatchet job of the subject of this biography. His style of statesmanship includes incongruous utterances that eventually morph into standard political positions that become more widely accepted than they might have been when they were first introduced. The purpose of this biography is not to portray the subject in the worst possible light. Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Let's wait and see what happens. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

In the mother-of-all-backpedaling, we get [21] "Trump says he meant to say in Helsinki that he saw no reason why it would not be Russia that interfered in elections" power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody believes that. Trump also said about US and Russian intelligence agencies that he had "confidence in both parties." Today's walk-back (which he has read off a piece of paper) is just Trump trying to cover up his embarrassing fuck up. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Please take it to your talk page. This is not a forum. - MrX 🖋 23:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, you mean like this kind of "walk-back" and cover up about a statement made at least 36 different times in different speeches - something that actually and devastatingly affected millions of Americans, Scjessey? [22] -- ψλ 19:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
That's some bullshit whataboutism that has no place in this discussion. That said, it didn't "devastatingly" effect millions of Americans. It prevented insurance companies from selling totally worthless policies. It was insurance companies that dumped customers, rather than provide them with proper insurance that actually meant something. And it was Republican changes to the law that forced this to happen. Moreover, "Obamacare" has been a monumental success that has allowed millions of Americans to have insurance, when previously they had nothing. Lives have been saved. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
"it didn't "devastatingly" effect millions of Americans" As has been pointed out to you previously, since you live on the other side of the globe and are not actually an American nor do you spend any significant time here, you can't possibly know how Obama's "You can keep your doctor...you can keep your healthplan" lies about the ACA truly affected us. As the Politifact link I provided to you clearly and neutrally pointed out, Obama did lie and then he turned around and lied about the lie. All of this, in conjunction with Nancy Pelosi's "We'll have to pass the bill to see what is in it" statement, duped a lot of American voters into re-electing Mr. Obama. They trusted him in regard to the ACA, they got shafted, and it's one of the reasons why a number of voters went GOP in 2016 and to a candidate who promised to get rid of the ACA ASAP. I personally know more than two-dozen people who were forced to go on Obamacare and either ended up paying higher premiums than ever before (and kept rising year after year) or opted to not have health insurance and pay the annual penalty because in the long run, it was cheaper for them. Statistics show that only about (or even less of) 20% of Americans were helped positively by the ACA. Now, take both of those numbers and do some math. What do you end up with? 65 million who benefitted, 260.57 million who did not. Here are the biggest lies told about the ACA after it became law: "Like your plan? You can keep your plan"; "Like your doctor? You can keep your doctor"; "Premiums will go down"; "Premiums will go down at an average of $2,500"; "Deductibles will go down". None of these things were true. And if you think they are, it only proves that you don't live here and don't personally know anyone who was forever and negatively affected by the ACA. -- ψλ 22:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you before, I've been living permanently in Pennsylvania for seventeen fucking years. Your alternative facts fail to take into account the fact that since we had Obamacare, the real increase in premiums (as opposed to how it would've been without Obamacare) has dramatically reduced for all Americans. Maybe STFU about where I was born and where I live, and expand your dataset to beyond that provided by the right wing echo chamber. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
You know what? I sincerely apologize. I was thinking of a different non-American born editor who is vehemently anti-Trump. Yes, you're right you do live here. I do, however, stand by my comments and statistics as well as the Politico article on the truth about Obama's commentary on the ACA before it was passed. -- ψλ 22:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Just passing through ... but ... this doesn't really seem like the sort of conversation to have anywhere on Wikipedia, much less within a separate discussion on the talk page of a BLP. --HunterM267 talk 22:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Possibly, Hunterm267, but it happens all the time at this article talk page and pretty much any article talk page related to Donald Trump. In other words, this is nothing new. At all. -- ψλ 22:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include. As someone born during Truman's presidency, I can assure you that responses like this [23] are extraordinary, demonstrating the unprecedentedness of Trump's statement. A recent CIA director called it "nothing short of treasonous". You couldn't turn on a Foxnews channel yesterday afternoon for any length of time without hearing a really vivid denunciation. Anyone who suggests that the criticisms are just routine anti-Trumpism are either grossly uninformed or dishonest. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz The next days coverage was largely featuring Rand Paul approving Trump and noting the Trump Derangement Syndrome for such bonkers talk. Plus some sites mention that Trump had largely signaled his positions in the Saturday CBS interview, and other sites voicing suspicions on the timing of indictments leading to surreal split screen with Scottish reception and tainting Helsinki. By waiting a few days gives a chance for more data and better idea of actual weight or if it just fades away. President Trump saying “no collusion” and “witch hunt” did not seem like much of a surprise. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include per HUllaballoo Wolfowitz and others. Let's not try to pretend that his is on par with one of his tweets or something. This is much bigger, which is why it's covered EVERYWHERE and why every politician with access to the internet has made a statement about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include Given the setting, these unprecedented remarks have had a profound affect on America's standing in the world. kencf0618 (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include It's immediately obvious that this has long-term encyclopedic value. It's an American President standing next to America's chief adversary, siding with the adversary against America's intelligence agencies, and refusing to condemn the adversary for past and present interference in America's elections. It provoked widespread condemnation on all sides of the political spectrum, including among Trump sycophants. After 30 hrs of coverage and condemnation (including pleading by Trump sycophants for Trump to clarify and correct what he said), Trump backtracked with an entirely implausible story of how he mistakenly said "would" instead of "wouldn't" at one point. There are certain things that are of obvious immediate importance, and this is one of them. 10-20 yrs down the road, one of the most consequential aspects of our era will be Russian interference in the 2016 election and it's on-going interference in Western democracies, and the fact that the US President, who was aided into office by Russian interference and whose multiple senior campaign staff have been implicated as working with and/or seeking to work with Russian agents, refused to condemn Russia or even acknowledge that Russian interference occurred while standing next to Putin is stark imagery that's of long-lasting value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Nothing to see here PackMecEng (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC) extended by power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Proposal: the President just clarified his comments and stated that he misspoke. So I think we're done here. I propose:
  1. That this thread be closed and
  2. That we add to the lead Trump said he would be good for the Blacks and the record low Black unemployment proves it.
Lionel(talk) 01:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Lionelt: Please make good-faith suggestions, and not proposals that have no chance of happening. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
based on RS, the President has orchestrated a historic recovery, extremely low unemployment, record low Black & Hispanic unemployment, record stock market, housing market on fire, approaching record sustained GDP, all according to RS, and none of this in the lead and instead some editors want to jam a miscommunication into the lead. Even his most vocal far left critics believe he will ride this economy to re-election. – Lionel(talk) 01:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Dafuck? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
No, let's not treat Trump's lies[24] as if they're facts.- MrX 🖋 02:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
"the President just clarified his comments and stated that he misspoke"--haha, so it's over? I'm looking for that emoji where the little face is laughing with tears coming out of his eyes. That's hilarious, Lionel. MrX, don't feed the trolls, unless it's with emojis. Hey! Lionel! There's my African-American! AND HE HAS A JOB NOW!!! (need more of those emojis) Drmies (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm looking for the one where Captain Picard hides his face in his hand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know somebody hatted this cuz it's so embarrassing, but I'm still having trouble getting over "the Blacks".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Leaning towards Against inclusion. One of the problems with articles like this is that we're attempting to write history in real-time. It is impossible for us to know what historians 100 years from now will think of this sub-topic. It might be important; it might not be. But we shouldn't be subject to the whims of sensationalist news media who's primary goal is make money. We're WP:NOTNEWS and there is no WP:DEADLINE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is a wiki page JUST FOR his travel and meetings, which is why it should not be here. Additionally, keeping it strictly to the facts, there is an entire transcript available online with numerous citations that one can give if they want to expand on it without clogging up wikipedia with personal opinions, while still documenting and keeping the facts about the meeting available on Wikipedia. Rook2pawn (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
No, this is definitely not "a wiki page JUST FOR his travel and meetings." You have misunderstood entirely what Wikipedia is about. He can use his own private website for that. --Tataral (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe they meant the Presidency of Donald Trump article since this is about an event that happened during his Presidency while he was in an official news conference at an international event.--MONGO (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure entirely what Rook meant either, nor where they got that impression, but I can say, meaning no offense, that they must be confused over something; there is no such consensus, nor is the suggested approach one which is typically applied with regard to similar articles. We have quite a few articles that divide articles about heads of state (particularly U.S. presidents) into one giving a general overview, one focusing on the presidency/office and often some further supplemental articles, which is generally what WP:SUMMARYSTYLE provides for. Far from the main Name of President article being limited to specific topics, it is the catch-all under which anything of a certain threshold of noteworthiness (note I choose my words carefully to avoid WP:NOTABILITY a related but distinctly different topic, which often gets conflated with the former) can and should be added to the article, as this article is the collective discussion of all of his life, and all noteworthy (that is, WP:WEIGHTFUL) aspects of his presidency are relevant. The question then becomes, what information becomes key for inclusion and, in general, at what degree of detail is information from different epochs in his life and presidency require to presented in, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:ARTICLESIZE? But the article is most certainly not "just about his travel and meetings" and it's hard for me to parse a meaning from that other than to assume that maybe Rook is confusing this with consensus regarding another WP:SPINOFF article. Snow let's rap 20:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see now that Tataral seems to have misread Rook a little there and then Mongo and I came swiftly along for the ride. Rook is actually saying that this information should not be included here, but in Trump's travels article, which makes quite a bit more sense. But most of my comments still apply, as it happens; I still think inclusion there (which is probably proper) does not settle the question here by any means (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and again WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). But we did do a service in that misreading, sorry Rook2pawn. Snow let's rap 20:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course we should include a short description of the Putin summit and reactions to it. This was such a significant event, and his role in it so controversial, that many normally supportive Republicans and even many Fox News commentators criticized him for it. This is far more significant than the Kim Jong Un meeting, for example, which deservedly has a paragraph in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm happy with the current coverage in the article; it may get reduced in time but is fine now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include Significant for obvious reasons (see Wolfowitz, Snoogans etc). Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include. I doubt this shall rise to being put in the lead, but in the article? Oh yes, most assuredly; I don't seen any way around that given the WP:WEIGHT of sourcing here. In terms of evaluative statements from public figures, there has been a chorus of commentary of the significance from all over the spectrum o both expected and non-expected figures--politicians from the right and left, and from both within America and without have all spoken as to the momentous shock created by this event. Even Newt Gingrich, one of Trump's staunchest political supporters has described it as "the most serious mistake of his presidency" and he's not alone as a major figure saying something along those lines.
I'm not sure if I agree with such assessments, but then, it doesn't really matter what I think; WP:RS are where we must take our ques here, and they are providing substantial coverage of the topic and treating it as a monumental moment in the presidency. I don't go out out of my way to search for Trump news, but I've never-the-less caught a part of the deluge of secondary sources (from such clearly RS fixtures as Reuters, the BBC, Associated Press and so on) which are painting the picture of a president and his White House which are on the defensive like they've perhaps never had to be before, and making it explicit that this occurrence is in at least some fundamental respects different from the other controversies or blowback Trump has faced before. That's case closed per WP:NPOV as far as I am concerned. I kind of think that may be an overstatement, but I don't get to substitute my analysis for that of the sources (WP:OR/WP:SYNTH), especially when so many of them converge on such a strong description of matters. Careful attribution and scrupulously neutral wording will be a necessity however, for obvious reasons. Snow let's rap 23:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This might deserve a sentence or two in Presidency of Donald Trump. The media losing its cotton-pickin' mind over Trump not doing what they wanted him to isn't a significant event in this man's life. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
False. This isn't "the media" (TM). It's pretty much everyone - politicians and experts from across the political spectrum - a couple of "usuals" like Hannity, Tucker Carleson and various pro-Donald internet troll groups excepted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
You know that commenting on everybody's vote doesn't negate their vote, yeah? Good thing "politicians and experts" don't edit Wikipedia. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Jerry, it seems from your contribs that you are relatively new to Wikipedia, which explains some of the perspectives you are voicing here for supporting your !vote, but you are going to need to get up to speed on some basic content policies if you are going to be contributing vocally to high-traffic and hight-controversy articles. Specifically, you need to take a look at WP:NPOV and especially WP:Original research. What you refer to rather pejoratively as "the media", we call WP:Reliable sources on this project, and you pretty much cannot edit this project non-disruptively if you view them as a force that needs to be pushed back against, because insofar as content in articles is concerned, your inclusion/disclusion arguments are explicitly required to be based upon what RS say on a matter, not your own interpretation of events or how important they are (again, see WP:OR).
Putting aside how generally unpragmatic and unwise it is to adopt a thought process of viewing all of "the media" as mostly a single monolithic and corrupt entity that has to be countered because they are obscuring WP:The Truth, it is particularly problematic here at Wikipedia, because our editorial policies and processes ask you to set aside your personal evaluation of issues and to rely solely on the reliable sources (and pretty all reliable sources with regard to the topic of Donald Trump are going to also belong to the class of materials you refer to as "the media"). Meaning no disrespect (because this is true of all of us) but we just don't care at all whether you think the sources "got it right" or are "overreacting", because those questions are nearly 100% irrelevant to nearly 100% of all Wikipedia content discussions: the only relevant questions are "how much WP:WEIGHT do sources give to this event, and what is the general summary of how they describe it?" Inserting another question, "Do I agree enough with the sources about how important this is, such that I want it included?", is per se original research. Now, I think all editors should keep comments as apolitical as possible on this project, but as an editorial matter, I will say this: if you subscribe to an expressly Trumpian view that "the mainstream media" is untrustworthy and/or histrionic as a class, this may not be the article for you to cut your teeth on, because almost every source likely to be used here is going to fall under that umbrella.
So no, "politicians and experts" do not edit Wikipedia, as you correctly state, but it is in fact their opinions that matter--not yours, not mine, and not those of any other editor on the project, no matter how well well-informed and well-reasoned we think those perspectives are. Which is admittedly a challenge for all of us at times, but something that has to be internalized for any kind of Wikipedia editing and especially in high-controversy areas. Sometimes those expert opinions come in directly as WP:primary sources, but we generally prefer the one-step-removed WP:secondary sources. And it really doesn't matter if you think they are losing their minds or focusing on the wrong things, so long as they are reliable sources and the coverage meets the threshold necessary to settle the editorial question at issue. Not that I can blame you for focusing on your own analysis; there are much more experienced editors dipping their toes in WP:OR on this talk page as a regular matter, for both pro- and anti-Trump purposes, so it's not setting the best of examples for newer editors. Last, on a completely ancillary matter, you may not have been previously made aware of this, given the history of the idiom, but you may wish to know that the tide has turned on "cotton picking" as a socially acceptable way to say that someone or their thought process is tedious or crazy: [25]. I totally WP:AGF that you intended it innocently, but it's worth taking note of all the same. My critiques here not withstanding, welcome to the project! Snow let's rap 00:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include Hugely widespread mainstream media coverage, worldwide, of the remarks, the reaction, the belated walkback, the allegations of treason from respected Republicans as well as Democrats. The whitewashing that goes on here on this article is legendary, but attempting to exclude this particular aspect is gob-smacking... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Which respected Republicans accused the president of treason, an offense that requires the death penalty? Also I agree with you that this should be included, just not in the guy's biography, since it's not a significant event in his life. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, no one is suggesting that we describe Trump's actions as "treasonous" here (and certainly not in Wikipedia's voice in any event; that would never fly with as many eyes as we have on this article). The question we are grappling with is whether to mention the summit in this article at all, which doesn't require us to parse how much of the RS commentary is positive vs. negative, but rather how largely the issue looms generally amongst the sources. Snow let's rap 01:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with that, but I'd still like to hear the names of these "respected Republicans" who are accusing the president of treason. I've been following this story pretty damn closely and I haven't seen a single Republican, respected or otherwise suggest that Trump needs the death penalty for a bad presser. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The respected junior senator from Arizona accused Trump of "giving aid and comfort to an enemy" just yesterday, which is treason under Article 3, section 3 of the US Constitution. He's been all over cable news, so you can't have been following the story too "damn closely" to have missed it. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the Never Trumper with a 32% approval rating who is resigning because nobody wants him in his office? Respected by ultra far-left fanatical zealots, maybe. Puh-lease. Who else ya got? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Honestly you two, this side discussion is adding nothing of value, because nobody is proposing we describe Trump as guilty of treason, and probably even the mention that some politicians described his action in this way is going to be detail that is considered too in-the-weeds for our coverage in this article. It's theoretically possible, but highly unlikely that we could include a carefully attributed statement along these lines, but the quoted figure wouldn't need to be someone from either the left or the right. And again, I can't emphasize enough how unlikely I think it is that the editors here would endorse that for this article (I would consider supporting it if the wording was spot-on neutral and part of detailed coverage, but I don't think it has a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of getting through the caution filter in this case). Anyway, until someone is proposing that, this exchange is moot for editorial purposes and is just two people on opposite sides of a political divide talking past each other, and generally being incredulous about the other's views on the matter, with little hope of landing on a shared understanding. Snow let's rap 02:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Um, opposing a hostile country and more specifically the regime of a Russian tyrant who used to be a Soviet Communist KGB agent, and who glorifies Stalin, and who is outspoken about his hatred of the western world in general and the US in particular, hardly qualifies as "ultra far-left". Rather, it is the mainstream Republican and Democrat (and western) position during the last century, shared by everyone who isn't an extremist. Supporting the KGB agent Putin and Russia against the US however easily qualifies as an "ultra far-left" position, as anyone who remembers the (first) cold war can attest to. This is self-evident; Russia is the primary enemy/adversary of the US. When someone spends all his time bashing the US' closest friends and allies of the past 70 years while promoting the interests of a KGB agent it isn't at all surprising that Americans widely regard that as treason, as reliable sources have demonstrated. --Tataral (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we put anything in about "treason", but by quoting Senator Flake I was demonstrating that members of Trump's own party (Cotton, McCain, Collins, even Paul Ryan) think Trump's Helsinki words and stance were highly inappropriate. Hyperbole like "ultra far-left fanatical zealots" shows who can't contribute with a neutral hat on, methinks. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Strongly Support Inclusion they should, at the very least, be under the section Foreign Policy. Oppose !voters here seem to be harping on the fact that they are scandalous but that does not take away the fact that they were very significant -- it is very, very significant when members of his own party have expressed the level of outrage that some have for US domestic politics, and they were also very important for the international political scene. Don't take it from me--- here's a GOP strategist calling them a "pivotal turn in our history"[[26]]. Pundits called it "historic" [[27]]. Here's another [[28]]. We include things that are relevant and important-- scandalous or not. --Calthinus (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my earlier comments. Let's write about the sky falling after it actually falls (if we're still around). Or let's write about the easing of U.S.–Russia tensions if/when that happens. For now, there was nothing solid coming out of this summit. — JFG talk 20:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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

RfC: Should the lead include that Trump was the first sitting US President to meet with a North Korean supreme leader?

It was widely acclaimed, by both sides, for weeks that Trump had a sit down with Kim Jong Un. It was probably more newsworthy than a few of the other points in the "During his presidency" paragraph.

2600:1700:9980:FB60:E86B:7972:FD9B:5794 (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - It was only "acclaimed" by the right-wing media echo chamber. The rest of the world thought it was very stupid, because it elevated "Rocket Man" to the same level as the US President. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For now, it could be a big thing later if something happens. There has been continued coverage with the recent dismantling of one of their sites. But if something happens the first meeting would not be the most notable part for the BLP, perhaps for the presidency article but again not sure the lead would be the place for it. PackMecEng (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not lede-worthy, certainly not for a biography article. It doesn't matter whether it was "acclaimed" or "stupid", it's just not that major a thing in the overall sweep of his life. Despite all the hype, it was just a meeting with the head of a smallish country with which we have been on bad terms. It is already reported in the article text. If we later achieve an actual breakthrough with NK - for example if they really do eliminate their nukes - that could be worth a mention in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If the meeting had accomplished something like the signing of a treaty or a trade agreement, it would be noteworthy, but if the only we can say is that it was the first, then that's trivial. Trump is known for many, many firsts.- MrX 🖋 19:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • WaitWP:TOOSOON. Will switch to yes if/when a Korean peace treaty is signed. — JFG talk 20:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Possible support if/when a treaty is signed depending on its actual content. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Possible reconsideration later, but not just with a peace treaty or other signed treaty. Something substantive like verified denuclearization.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Later - when a trade pact, peace treaty, or denuclearization happens. “First” to visit should be mentioned in the body and at the article List of international trips, and at the Presidency of article .... but seems too little content to suit WP:LEAD. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Should LEAD edit restrictions be made ?

Seems like lately there is a number of wants to edit the lead, either jump to edit in lead from that morning’s TV (with nothing in article), or re-litigating old ground.

Should there be some restriction or minimum hurdle be added for lead edits? Generally should we put in

  • A) No additional guidance; or
  • B) A 30-day moratorium on any lead edit; or
  • C) No lead change without some New external event causing it; or
  • D) No lead change without substantial New article content causing it

Thoughts ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • WP:SNOW Oppose That's just not how this works. We have general community policies which govern when and how often an issue can be raised for a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussion and when and where it is WP:DISRUPTIVE to keep raising an issue. If anyone has a particular editor whom they feel is WP:POVPUSHING or refusing the WP:DROPTHESTICK, they can pursue the normal community remedies or seek application of the WP:Discretionary sanctions that are in place here. But creating a moratorium on the lead for the encyclopedia's second most trafficked article is both infeasible and counter-intuitive--not to mention an arbitrary "solution" to the supposed issues. Don't get me wrong, even just stopping in for short bursts whenever an RfC summons me, I have seen a lot of the refusal to let things go which I can see has inspired this proposal (I've seen a great deal of civil and not so civil POV pushing whenever a bot does bring me here). But the proposed cure is worse than the disease and just not workable. Snow let's rap 07:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: I get it that you enjoy rising snow, but it's not up to any participant in this discussion to call it SNOW before the pile-on you seem to anticipate actually occurs. Snow white can wait a few hours… Face-smile.svgJFG talk 21:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Haha, fair enough. But the reason I anticipate a little SNOW here is because this would run against the grain of policy; even if it got a subsantial number of support !votes here, it would still be unenforceable; we can't maintain a moratorium on editing; consensus changes and articles as prominent as this can't have their lead locked to a given version; indeed, we don't do this with any article on the project, but it would be especially problematic with regard to one as high profile as this. Likewise, options C and D (while perhaps good advice that should be considered) just beg the question; that is to say, those approaches will just shift the topic matter that people are arguing over, rather than forestalling them from debating (or being tendentious if they were going to be so anyway). So my SNOW vote was not because I didn't think some people might find this to be a good idea; I'm sure a couple will. But you'd never get an admin to enforce it and trying to do so with social pressure here would just add to the acrimony. I certainly understand why Mark felt there is a need to address the problem of people not giving up on things that consensus has rejected, but this is not the right tool for the job. Snow let's rap 21:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - With the exception of typos/spelling/vandalism and similar, I think the lede of this article is contentious enough that it would be reasonable to expect even small changes to require consensus on the talk page first. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are arbitration remedies already in place. I do not see the benefit that could be gained from making it even harder to change the status quo. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a requirement to discuss "significant" changes to the lead on the talk page first, though I doubt any proposal here will find consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support no lede change without prior discussion on the talk page. Oppose any moratorium. — JFG talk 21:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
See #extended discussion below. — JFG talk 09:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unclear how these restrictions can be enforced. There's are already DS for this page and this is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there are actually TOO MANY restrictions on this article already, which opens up all sorts of dysfunctional opportunities for WP:GAME behavior and this would just make it worse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is contrary to how Wikipedia is supposed to work and would have no benefit for readers.- MrX 🖋 11:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wrong venue. If you want even more special page restrictions on this article, you'll need to seek them at WP:AE or, more likely, WP:ARCA. Even if this quasi-RfC closed with a consensus in favor of the idea, it would just be an advisory "local consensus" ArbCom or maybe AE admins should consider.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    I'd like to see evidence supporting that argument, even in the form of a statement by an admin. This page gets enough admin attention that I would have expected to see an unsolicited comment similar to yours from an admin in the 8 days this has been open. In my experience at this article, we have had a free hand to create local procedural solutions to perceived local problems, provided they do not conflict with or undermine the ArbCom remedies. Ultimately an unsubstantiated "wrong venue" claim from a non-admin will have no effect. ―Mandruss  09:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
    Honestly I'm not sure how I would approach that as an admin. I would probably lean toward enforcing a local consensus if it were the result of a formal RfC with widespread participation. I see a bit of precedent for that with us enforcing the list of 1RR-exempt consensus items at the top of the page. Alternatively any admin admin could unilaterally take take the local consensus and put it into the AE rules. ~Awilley (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

@JFG: So you would have no problem with discussing edits like this one first, with the knowledge that (1) it will consume far more editor time and (2) per "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission", such edits will be less likely to be accepted? What will you consider a consensus? If one editor opposes (possibly with what you see as an extremely weak rationale) and no other editors are interested, are you prepared to forget it and move on? ―Mandruss  04:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be fine with proposing any lede edit except vandalism reverts on the talk page before applying it. That does limit the BOLD principle, but in a very limited scope, and we are already litigating so many minor changes that get reverted under DS/CR, that I don't think there would be too much of an additional burden. In fact, we could well end up with a lighter burden and fewer contentious discussions driven by emotional reaction to "shocking news". With this approach, editors would be encouraged to add "breaking news" material to the article body instead of jumping to the lede, so that when the time comes to update the lede, there is something to work from. Regarding rules to insert a proposed change, I would just add a minimum wait time of 48 hours, because nothing is urgent enough that the lede MUST be updated immediately (unless Trump gets killed or removed from office). I would keep the talk page comments advisory only, i.e. in the case you mention if nobody says a thing except one lone dissenter, the OP could still add their content after 48 hours, and the dissenter would have to revert it if they really want to force a consensus discussion. I expect the system to self-regulate, given the high scrutiny of the talk page by "regulars" of diverse viewpoints. — JFG talk 04:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I would keep the talk page comments advisory only - That's not "prior discussion", it's prior notification. It would effectively be an extension of the edit summary field, which is already about 250 characters if I'm not mistaken. That's pointless busy work. ―Mandruss  05:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly. The edit summary is not meant for starting discussions about contents, merely to describe an edit and provide a short rationale. The "prior notification" mechanism, as you call it, gives some respite for all editors, so that even the author of a suggested change will have time to review and fine-tune their proposal in light of new developments over the cooling-off period. Again, people would be incentivized to expand the article body before jumping into the lede for attention to "urgent" updates. — JFG talk 06:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The "breaking news" thing is a problem, but it is not limited to the lead and this is not a good solution to it. A required delay for addition of any content would be both more effective and simpler, and for this bio article one week would not be out of line. Talk page discussion should also be prohibited during that delay period, otherwise there would be little difference: as it stands today it takes us at least a week to form consensus anyway. The point would be to allow the media situation to calm down and stabilize a bit before we even evaluate RS. ―Mandruss  05:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to prohibit talk page debate, that's really an unworkable suggestion. If it takes a week to form consensus, then the article update will have to wait and that's fine, but if you add a mandatory "shut up" period to the talk page, then how long will it take to form consensus after that? We need to uphold freedom of speech on the talk pages; any restrictions should apply to article space only. — JFG talk 06:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
If talk page discussion begins immediately, most editors' positions will be established within the first day or two, as they are now. That editors rarely change a stated position is a simple matter of observation; positions almost always become entrenched at the moment they click "Publish changes". So the idea is to prevent editors from stating a position early on. ―Mandruss  06:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Editors will be happy to debate their positions while discussing body text. Lede text can wait. Restrictions on discussion are out of the question. — JFG talk 09:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Knowing you to be the collaborative editor that you are, I will assume you mean that you are strongly opposed to restrictions on discussion. ―Mandruss  09:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
That is correct. That's also why I usually oppose moratoria. WP:CCC must be honored. — JFG talk 09:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Also I don't see much trouble with adding developing news to the body. Normal editing processes work adequately there, whereas bold changes to the lede tend to trigger redundant debates. — JFG talk 06:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Minor changes to consensus wording

On the 19th an editor added a word, "be", to the sentence in the lead about net worth that was decided recently. This sentence is part of #Current consensus #5.

As many of you know, my position has been that we need a bright line on changes to consensus wording, requiring consensus for even minor changes. As I see it, the alternative is a slippery slope, and we would soon see increased conflict around the undefinable limits of the word "minor". My aim is to minimize conflict.

But I have sensed more tolerance than support for my view, and this latest edit has stood unchallenged for ​3 12 days. The consensus list item has not been changed to add the new word.

What do we think about how things like this should be handled? ―Mandruss  08:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Historically, minor changes to wording that have no effect on meaning have been readily accepted. A short discussion to uphold the change should be conducted, and then consensus list updated unless objections arise. — JFG talk 10:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
So the change would be kept in place until/unless there were a consensus to remove it, meaning that the process for minor changes to consensus would be the reverse of that for non-minor changes? Also, I'm sure you're aware that experienced editors have strongly disagreed as to whether a change affected meaning. ―Mandruss  11:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I do not consider the inclusion of "be" to be a change in the wording. It is clear to me that the word had been accidentally omitted, and the editor in question did the right thing in correcting it. It is functionally equivalent to correcting a spelling error or a typo. I respectfully suggest that this isn't the "use case" to test these boundaries on. Wait until something more obvious comes along, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
This was an obvious correction, inserting a missing word. (Do we really think it was supposed to read "estimated his net worth to $3.1 billion"?) Thank them for correcting the error, and let it go. And BTW correct it in the consensus wording also. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't so obviously a correction to me, as I knew that the original was written by a non-American and there are minor language differences. It didn't seem far-fetched to me that a non-American might say "estimated to" where I might prefer "estimated at". While this article is written in American English, I didn't see this as a clear-cut case like the well-known spelling differences. Also, I observed that 12 editors had participated in the (!)voting and none of them had mentioned the "obvious" error in the proposed text.
I will correct the consensus entry and add a link to this discussion. The larger process question will remain unresolved because nobody can talk about it unless there is an actual use case. ―Mandruss  04:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2018

  • P3S3 "many of his public statements were controversial or false."
  • P3S4 "Trump was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton."
  • All of Paragraph 5 in the lede.

FOR;

  • P3S3, is this an opinion, fact or both? If fact, was there a consensus. Statement needs revised to be homologous.
  • P3S4, this can be deemed as a very subjective statement. Is the statement insinuating that majority thought Hillary would win or is it leading into the popular vote topic?
  • Paragraph 5 needs a revision. The lede for the whole Russia Interference section insinuates and draws readers to a predetermined conclusion, though the intention behind it could be either or. CITING A NEWS ARTICLE AS A SOURCE SHOULD BE GROUNDS TO GET PUNCHED IN THE THROAT. Citing sensationalized news stories is blatantly ignorant of more credible sources, I'm not saying its "fake news" but merely that the source potentially could be biased, subjectively worded and/or worded to draw readers to a specific conclusion. As of right now, the AG and AAG have both said there is no direct collusion between POTUS and Russia. It needs to be stated that some of his campaign officials had unwitting contact with foreign agents but nothing grossly criminal.

Navyboiii (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)§§Navyboiii (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Navyboiii (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yikes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:49, 3 August 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. Also, these sections are well sourced. O3000 (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Navyboiii: Regarding the "controversial or false" phrase, this was extensively debated and agreed upon: please read archived discussions linked from #Current consensus, item #7. Regarding the "surprise victory", that is how Trump's election was described by most coverage worldwide. Actually, that's a rather mild wording, the general tone of sources being rather "a stunning political upset". See also Dewey defeats Truman for a historical comparison. Regarding the paragraph about the Mueller investigation, it's not clear exactly what you disagree with, or how you think this summary of the affair could be improved. Feel free to elaborate and suggest an actual text, with appropriate sources. — JFG talk 16:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, User:Navygoiii! I see that you are new here; welcome, and I hope you stick around and learn how Wikipedia works. JFG already pointed out that your first two points have been decided by consensus based on Reliable Sources. In your third comment, this sentence "CITING A NEWS ARTICLE AS A SOURCE SHOULD BE GROUNDS TO GET PUNCHED IN THE THROAT" indicates that you have not yet learned what Wikipedia is about. (Oh, and please don’t use all-caps or violent language.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its content is based entirely on Reliable Sources including respected news organizations. You want "more credible sources"; what kind of sources do you have in mind, if not mainstream news sources? We can’t use blogs, opinion pieces, or our own opinion. Also, you said "As of right now, the AG and AAG have both said there is no direct collusion between POTUS and Russia. It needs to be stated that some of his campaign officials had unwitting contact with foreign agents but nothing grossly criminal." Paragraph 5 does not say or imply that there was direct collusion between POTUS and Russia, only that the special counsel is investigating "any links and/or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in its election interference." We can't say what you suggest about campaign officials' contact, because we don’t yet know if any of the contacts were criminal in nature; that is still under investigation. And not all of the contacts were "unwitting"; for example, when Mike Flynn called the Russian ambassador he knew exactly who he was dealing with. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks acknowledgements in 1992 russian movie about spies and russian mafia

Some scenes of Weather Is Good on Deribasovskaya, It Rains Again on Brighton Beach 1992 movie about moscow special forces were filmed in the Trump Taj Mahal. Donald Trump is personally acknowledged in the closing credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craft37by (talkcontribs) 23:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, for such a lengthy article, this is quite trivial. O3000 (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, undue for this article. Donald Trump filmography would be a better fit I think. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Or Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Atlantic City. But bring good sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
What acknowledgements? Is it just a thanks or did he work on the project? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there are thanks acknowledgements in titles of 1992 movie about soviet-russian spies. In those times (and even now) this kind a movie only could be filmed in close ties with government and by special departments request. So this is possibly bright example illustrating Trump connection with the Russian KGB and Federal Security Service from beginning of 90s. Craft37by (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Any sources? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
This is nuts. Trump was routinely thanked by the movie producers or director to allow filming on his property. No Russians need be involved! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Besides, it's undue trivia. — JFG talk 08:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2018

Hi, it looks like there's a "check date values" error with the cite web template for the "Donald Trump: King of Clubs" reference (in the ==== Golf courses ==== section). Can you change "|accessdate=July, 2018" to "|accessdate=August 5, 2018"? Thank you. Ununseti (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done IffyChat -- 17:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Obama birth certificate

Consensus reached. Paragraph condensed. — JFG talk 21:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this level of detail really necessary for this article? I think not. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No, and it's original research based on a primary sources as far as I can tell.- MrX 🖋 16:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
If you're not going to revert per BRD, we should notify the non-regular editor Schistocyte of this discussion. ―Mandruss  16:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: can you please explain why you believe the sentence was original research? Here is the verbaitim quote from the Hawaii DOH
"In 2001, the Hawai„i State Department of Health began computer-generating vital statistics records. Since then, its longstanding policy and practice has been to issue and provide only the computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth, and to not produce photocopies of actual records to fulfill requests for certified copies of certificates."
Several fact-checking websites mentioned this point, but I thought it was most appropriate to utilize the original source. If you would be more comfortable with another source, here is a quote from politifact that says essentially the same thing:
"So back to the claim that Gibbs lied about posting Obama's birth certificate on the Internet. WorldNetDaily is correct that the Obama campaign didn't post his original birth certificate on the Internet. But their suggestion that there is some significant difference between the two documents is wrong. They both prove the same thing. Maybe the original would identify the hospital where Obama was born, but that's irrelevant. The issue is what city, and therefore country, was he born. The document posted by the campaign proves Obama was born in Honolulu, according to Health Department officials. And that's really the central issue here.The Health Department says the "Certification of Live Birth" is Hawaii's version of a birth certificate." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/28/worldnetdaily/birthers-claim-gibbs-lied-when-he-said-obamas-birt/
Schistocyte (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Schistocyte: Sorry, I jumped the gun. It is not original research. However, it is a bit too detailed for this article in my opinion.- MrX 🖋 17:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: No worries. Here's why I think it is important: Trump said on numerous occasions how proud he was that he got Obama to release his birth certificate (at one point saying it was "something he should have done a long time ago"). This is simply not true. Obama already released his birth certificate during the campaign, and he later had to petition the Hawaii DOH for them to go against their policy and release the original document to put an end to the questions. Obviously if there is not a consensus on including this point, then I want push for it. Thanks Schistocyte (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I think we need to limit the coverage here to the essentials. It's really not necessary to prove that Trump made a false claim, since that's business as usual.- MrX 🖋 21:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This is certainly an interesting detail, but it is undue in this BLP of Trump. We already link to the master article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and that's where it belongs. I also think we give too much space to this paragraph, compared with other elements of Trump's bio. I would cut it down to 4-5 lines max. — JFG talk 19:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
We should just say he made false claims A, B, C, and was a leader in promulgating Obama birther conspiracy theories, which sought to delegitimize and "other" the first African-American president. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
After some additional reflection I do think this pharagraph could be shortened and the content I was attempting to add probably is better suited in the article on the conspiracy theory itself. Schistocyte (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Sounds a WP:SOAPBOX or WP:OR discussion here -- voiced a pushing an editorial position of aiming for "just say he made false claims A, B, C, and was a leader in promulgating Obama birther conspiracy theories" -- on just personal agenda ? Wasn't the whole point in question about the short form being disliked and NOT accepted as a real birth certificate ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here? Sorry. Schistocyte (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Schistocyte - The “We should just say he made false claims” etcetera is reading like choosing to push a SOAPBOX or personal agenda points. I then asked whether that article section is focused on demanding the long form. (Implication being that should have gotten attention.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


Proposal

Current paragraph on birtherism is too long for this bio, compared with other events covered.

Trump played a leading role in "birther" conspiracy theories that had been circulating since Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.[276][277] Beginning in March 2011, he publicly questioned Obama's citizenship and eligibility to serve as president.[278][279][280] Although the Obama campaign had released a copy of the "Certificate of Live Birth" in 2008,[281] Trump demanded to see the original "long-form" certificate.[278] Notably, the Hawaii Department of Health does not produce copies of original birth certificates when fulfilling a vital records request, as both documents contain the same fundamental information and thus both are legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawaii.[282] Trump later mentioned having sent investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but he did not follow up with any findings.[278] He also repeated a debunked allegation that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya.[283][284] When the White House later released Obama's long-form birth certificate,[285] Trump took credit for obtaining the document, saying "I hope it checks out."[286] His official biography mentions his purported role in forcing Obama's hand,[287] and he has defended his pursuit of the issue when prompted, later saying that his promotion of the conspiracy made him "very popular".[288] In 2011, he had called for Obama to release his student records, questioning whether his grades warranted entry into an Ivy League school.[289] He also claimed in his 2011 CPAC speech that Obama's classmates "don't know who he is".[290] When asked in 2015 whether he believed Obama was born in the United States, he said he did not want to discuss the matter further.[291][292] In September 2016, he publicly acknowledged Obama's birthplace and falsely claimed that the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign.[279] In late 2017, he continued to question the authenticity of the birth certificate in closed-door conversations with advisers.[293]

I would suggest to summarize it thus:

Starting in 2011, Trump was a major proponent of "birther" conspiracy theories alleging that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, questioning his citizenship and eligibility. When the White House released the "long-form" birth certificate from Hawaii, Trump took credit for forcing Obama's hand, and he stated during his presidential campaign that pushing the issue had made him "very popular". In September 2016, he publicly acknowledged Obama's birthplace and falsely claimed that the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 campaign. Trump had also questioned whether Obama's grades warranted entry into an Ivy League school.

Naturally, the most appropriate citations would be kept, but let's get agreement on a shorter text first. — JFG talk 23:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hillary's campaign did spread birtherism a bit. Not her personally, but it seems dodgy wording there and getting offtopic from birtherism into Hillaryism and gradeism at any rate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, it's a bit off-topic, but I was abiding by consensus #27, which is recent and unlikely to be overturned. The "gradeism" is significant as another angle of disparagement for the Trump–Obama rivalry. We could also use Trump's infamous "Obama will go down as the worst President ever", to which O. replied "At least I will go down as President". Yeah, that aged well… Face-smile.svgJFG talk 05:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose in current form - I like the idea of tightening it up, but I don't like the language in its current form. It is vital that we retain language like "leading role in 'birther' conspiracy theories" and "publicly questioned Obama's citizenship and eligibility" and "[Trump said that] his promotion of the conspiracy made him 'very popular'" in the section, because these speak volumes about the kind of man Trump is. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Scjessey: The proposed wording already includes most of what you deem vital. I have amended it to add the "citizenship and eligibility" part. Whether we say he "was a major proponent of" or "played a leading role in" sounds equivalent to me. — JFG talk 13:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the addition; however, I believe it needs to include all of the stuff I quoted. "Played a leading role in" is more significant than just "a major proponent." Trump was the primary figure in the birther movement, and he basically launched his campaign off the back of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
We disagree here, and I believe serious sources disagree as well. Correction 1: Trump was one of the primary figures of birtherism, there were plenty others, before and after him. Correction 2: Trump did not "launch his campaign off the back of birtherism"; the campaign happened 4 years later, and Obama's birthplace just happened to be evoked in a couple interviews, especially when Trump went after Cruz for being "Canadian" and McCain for being born in Panama. — JFG talk 20:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Scjessey - the reason why it is ‘vital’ just seems undesirable partisan SOAPBOX. “because these speak volumes about the kind of man Trump is” ... is not a suitable WP guide or policy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with some suggestions

Starting in 2011, Trump was a major proponent of "birther" conspiracy theories alleging that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, questioning his citizenship and eligibility that falsely asserted that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and questioned his eligibility to serve as president.

I'm really not trying to WP:POV push, but I believe this is the current consensus[29] at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
I'd also remove "forced Obama's hand" Just say something like: Trump would later take credit for the White House's release a copy of Obama's original ("long-form") birth certificate in 2011. Schistocyte (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Updated proposal

Starting in 2011, Trump was a major proponent of "birther" conspiracy theories alleging that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and questioned his eligibility to serve as president. Trump later took credit for pushing the White House to release the "long-form" birth certificate from Hawaii, and he stated during his presidential campaign that his stance had made him "very popular". In September 2016, he publicly acknowledged Obama's birthplace that Obama was born in the United States, and falsely claimed that the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 campaign.

Took a few suggestions into account and further simplified the wording. Awaiting more editor input before applying changes to the article. — JFG talk 15:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I like this version. We absolutely need to include this in the article - it was a major factor in his rising to political prominence - but we don't need to go into exhaustive detail. A slight tweak in the wording: I would say "he publicly acknowledged that Obama was born in Hawaii" rather than "he publicly acknowledged Obama's birthplace". --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Pinging prior participants @Emir of Wikipedia, Markbassett, Schistocyte, and Scjessey: your input on this update? — JFG talk 16:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
President -> president. ―Mandruss  16:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 DoneJFG talk 16:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with MelanieN's tweak, although I'd be more inclined to say "the United States" instead of Hawaii, because some assholes like to pretend Hawaii wasn't part of the USA back then. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Better - though if using the NYT cited the language should just follow the cite and quote of Trump "born in the United States". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, I updated the text with "he publicly acknowledged that Obama was born in the United States". I think we're good to go. Will insert in article soon. — JFG talk 16:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

We should have only one official website in the infobox

I've never ever seen an article with more than one external link in the official website (note that it isn't plural and has no plural option) parameter of the infobox. This article includes three, including no less than two Twitter accounts. I believe we have a long-standing policy on not linking to people's social media accounts in the infobox, but only to one "official website". I propose that we only link to one official website in this infobox and remove social media accounts. --Tataral (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I second that suggestion. A Twitter account is not a web page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree. -- ψλ 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tataral: Do you have a link to the long-standing policy? Also pretty much every modern past president's article has more than one link in the info box. So it is not about the number of links. PackMecEng (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Closest I can find is WP:Twitter-EL specifically "As an external link: ☒ Generally no. Exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other Web presence; or is known for their Twitter activity" I think it is fair to say he is known for his twitter activity... Past that could probably dump the WH Twitter though. PackMecEng (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

That policy relates to the external links section, not the infobox as discussed here. I have no problem with including a link to his realDonaldTrump Twitter account in that section. --Tataral (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Neither does #Current consensus #9. ―Mandruss  20:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
From a quick dig in the archives looks like this was brought up almost a year ago with consensus to include the links.[30] PackMecEng (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely keep Twitter link to @realDonaldTrump, because Trump's continuous "policy by tweeting" is one of the most notable characteristics of his presidency. If we keep only one of three, this should be the one. Of course, the official links to the White House and @POTUS can remain in external links. On the other hand, they do no harm in the infobox either. — JFG talk 20:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that they should be in the article, but in External Links, not the infobox. --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@MelanieN: and which link would you keep in the infobox if we end up keeping only one? — JFG talk 00:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The website, obviously. That's what the infobox says: "website". Both twitter accounts can go in external links.--MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The web site belongs to the White House, not to Trump personally. We're not listing amazon.com as the web site of Jeff Bezos. Trump's closest thing to a personal web site, now that his campaign is over, is indeed his Twitter feed of daily utterances. — JFG talk 01:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
It's the Trump page at the White House. And if anyone wants to get to @RealDonaldTrump, there is a link to it on that webpage. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
There isn't a requirement that a website must be privately owned by the subject to qualify as "official website" for the purposes of this infobox. For a head of state or government, an official government website (such as whitehouse.gov) is usually considered the "official website". The point of including an official website in the infobox is to give the readers the opportunity to read what the subject has to say about himself (especially in the form of a biography), and he can also use that website to link to his social media accounts. --Tataral (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that there should only be one external link in the infobox, but I was on the losing side of that debate when it last came up. (I'll try to find a link). A Twitter feed is indeed not a website.- MrX 🖋 20:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude from infobox, but absolutely have it in the external links section. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"White supremacist support" v. "Alt-right support"

Consensus to not rename the section to "Ald-right support". No consensus to remove the section entirely. (That proposal should have been in a separate thread.) ~Awilley (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While a bunch of people very much wanted to make David Duke's support for Donald Trump a major issue, it wasn't terribly important. The alt-right as a whole was far more relevant. I propose renaming the section "White supremacist support" to be "Alt-right support". It's still not entirely clear whether alt-right will be a 2016-only buzzword, or if it will continue to be a long-standing political movement. The definition of the term isn't 100% clear either (though, as more secondary sources have been written in the aftermath of the election, it may be possible to write a fair article on the subject).

If I made this change, I would remove most of the detail about David Duke (particularly the shaggy-dog story about a "bad earpiece"), and add 2-3 sentences about what the alt-right was and how it supported Trump [31] [32] [33]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - White supremacists love Trump, and Trump has courted white supremacists. To rewrite the article to minimize these shocking facts would be... er... whitewashing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Ha, very punny! PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@Scjessey: Any citation for "Trump has courted white supremacists"? Facts, not "dog-whistle" scaremongering from pundits or opponents. Genuinely interested if there's such an instance where Trump appealed to white supremacists, or expressed any white supremacy ideas himself. — JFG talk 08:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
What do you think building a big beautiful wall to keep the Mexican rapists out is? What do you think the Muslim ban is? You really should read a variety of sources. Many American's limit themselves to sources that reinforce their existing views, while rejecting facts and information that upset those views. A variety of sources consider these comments as appealing to white supremacists:
“I think it's been very bad for Europe. I think Europe is a place I know very well and I think what has happened is very tough. It's a very tough situation, I just think it's changing the culture. It's a very negative thing for Europe.”
“Congratulations to Corey Stewart for his great victory for Senator from Virginia. Now he runs against a total stiff, Tim Kaine, who is weak on crime and borders, and wants to raise your taxes through the roof. Don’t underestimate Corey, a major chance of winning!”
“You have some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.”
And the consequence of all this?
Thanks for the note. Please do not presume whether I am American (I am not), and which sources I read (plenty). To your examples: these are all people claiming that Trump's political positions amount to white nationalist support, or some fringe people on the far right hailing Trump. There are fringe people supporting any politician, nothing special here, except the scaremongering. What I was looking for are examples of Trump "courting white supremacists", i.e. asking directly for their support, congratulating them, inviting them on stage, praising their stance, etc. I have still not seen that. Please enlighten me. The wall: it's a disputed means to enhance border security, and "Mexicans" are not a race; nothing is "white supremacist" in this project. The "Muslim ban" never was a ban of Muslims, as confirmed 7-2 by the Supreme Court. Besides, religion is not a race. "Fine people on both sides": a disgusting remark, that's the closest I see to any support of white nationalists by Trump, although that's still a far cry from "courting" them. — JFG talk 06:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I did not presume that you are an American, nor did I say you are an American. I don't think anyone here is that interested in spoon feeding you even more evidence than we already have that a very large number of sources have said that it appears that Trump has engaged in demagogy to white supremacists and racists and that the effect is that the white supremacists and racist have been emboldened— to run for office; to march in the streets with Nazi flags; to proclaim that he holocaust never happened; to erect billboards that say "Make America White Again." and so on. I'm certainly not going to argue about whether Mexicans or Muslims are a race, as if it even matters. I'm also not entertaining straw men arguments or fringe definitions. - MrX 🖋 11:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Re:"spoon feeding": your disparagement is not helpful. Again, you are explaining that many sources express the view that Trump's candidacy has "emboldened" fringe elements in society, but you fail to show sources showing Trump "courting" those people. Please spoon-feed me that. — JFG talk 11:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The sources have been shown, and many more are readily available for anyone wishing to put forth the effort. Most people understand the sources. I think we're done here.- MrX 🖋 11:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I forgot the quotes. "It's just changing the culture." That's a fact, immigration changes the culture. If you're American, you should know that, being a nation of immigrants. This statement doesn't say anything about race. "Congratulations to Corey Stewart": what's the point? Is Corey Stewart a white supremacist? "Fine people on both sides": I have already commented. Is this the single thing we have to support the idea that Trump is "courting white supremacists"? — JFG talk 06:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
You're free to interpret sources however you want or reach whatever conclusions you want. Fortunately for Wikipedia, this is where the consensus process works well in ensuring that our content accurately reflects what reliable sources have written, and objective reality.- MrX 🖋 11:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this particular suggestion of "alt-right"; open to the idea of re-looking at this section title. The term "alt-right" is not widely understood; it's more inside baseball-type political jargon. I doubt it is widely used in the sources we have to support this article, and we should be working from the sources. Does an examination of the sources suggest a better title than "White supremacist"? (For that matter I think the term "White nationalist" is preferred over "White supremacist".) --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
White nationalism is white supremacist terminology, created by them as a euphemism for white supremacy (ADL). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Alt-right is not very well defined, and would tend to diminish the significance of this material. I have no objection to adding alt-right though. - MrX 🖋 19:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "White supremacist" isn't very well defined either really. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
There you go again.:-P- MrX 🖋 19:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support-ish (changed to Delete, see below) – The section heading is unduly inflammatory, although far-right ideas did play a role in Trump's campaign. I would rename the section "Far right support", discuss the alt-right movement and the David Duke controversy, while cutting down the play-by-play anecdotal interview. A comparison with recent populist leaders such as Silvio Berlusconi would also be on point in this section. — JFG talk 20:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I think a comparison to Berlusconi should be in the "Public profile" section. If there's sourced material, I'd be fine with it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment clearly other editors don't feel "alt-right" is well-understood by the general public, so I'm striking that specific suggestion. I will try to add 1-2 sentences about the alt-right (in relation to Trump) to that section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete section instead ? It’s not very important, and really not biographical (about his actions and things that made big impact on his life), so could simply be deleted. If it seems just a brief period when it was in the news, then it does not seem needed here. The Presidency article has Charlottesville, and I’m not seeing something as specific or comparable in noted events here. If it’s not deleted, maybe say both alt-right and white supremicist in the title. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Markbassett. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleting makes sense for the main bio. This is covered in the campaign article. — JFG talk 08:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
No it doesn't.- MrX 🖋 11:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Not biographical but obviously belongs in the Presidency article.--MONGO (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
    First delete the Trump Corp. material, the golf course material, the casino material, the USFL failure, and the leveraged construction projects and then we can talk.- MrX 🖋 11:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Markbassett, JFG, and MONGO. -- ψλ 15:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The alt-right is a subgroup within the white supremacist movement, far-right conservatives embracing "racism, anti-Semitism and white supremacy" per ADL definition. Responding to Markbassett and JFG's remarks, it's not a matter of the past. It didn't end with the campaign (for that matter, did the 2016 campaign ever end or did it turn into the 2020 campaign on 1/20/17?) – see Charlottesville, sh*thole countries, etc. {Independent}. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Rather silly for the main BLP article. A conversation could be had at the campaign or president article though. PackMecEng (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete from this article, but is still important for the presidency article. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep As I said above, I am open to alternate titles for this section. But I don't agree with recent suggestions here to delete the entire section. It is one of the most widely commented-on aspects of his campaign and presidency and needs to be here in some form. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    As you said, campaign and Presidency so its much less biographical and much more presidential material.--MONGO (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    That doesn't mean it can't be here too. Plenty of things are about all three: campaign, presidency, and him personally. Including at least half of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per MelanieN. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete – On second thought, this is not the right article. Move relevant parts to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, Alt-right and Southern Poverty Law Center, if not already fully covered there. — JFG talk 16:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose / Keep. Coverage of this has been extensive and consistent for several years, and generally relates it to him personally rather than exclusively to his presidential campaign. For things like dry and less well-known policy positions, it would make sense to confine them purely to political or campaign articles; but racial / far-right things in particular are defining aspects of his public image as an individual, and therefore need to be on his personal article as well. --Aquillion (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - per JFG. Jdcomix (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • *Oppose per Mr. X.. Sources clearly shown.Casprings (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    • The burden for inclusion in this article is higher than sources existing; we would have an article 10 or more times larger if all sourced material were included. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure how this became a discussion of removing the entire section. I oppose that, primarily because some mention of the "alt-right" should be included in discussion of his candidacy. I would probably support a proposal to reduce the section to 1-2 paragraphs in some other section about his campaign. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete There's a whole section dedicated to racial controversies he was directly involved in, these issues came up during the campaign and are better covered in those related articles.LM2000 (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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