Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 104

Archive 100

←

Archive 102

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

→

Archive 110

Racial views has bias

The section mentions his speech following the Charlottesville episode but does not mention the fact that he literally denounced white supremacy in the same sentence as saying there were good people on both sides. Bgrus22 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Bgrus22, literally nobody heard him denounce white supremacy, but they heard the "many good people on both sides" line. The response from the white supremacists themselves (like David Duke) and the weight given in WP:RS to the coverage of Trump's handling of Charlottesville is what makes our handling of this appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be because the msm is lying about what he said and continue to push that lie, if anyone actually watches the video they would see that he specifically said that he wasn't talking about white supremacists and neo nazis when he said good people. 148.77.10.25 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Here is the first comment of good people, and in that same speech (time stamp of 2 min or so) he denounces the white supremacists. Bgrus22 (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Bgrus22, I've seen it, I know. Nobody believes his denunciation of white supremacy, as noted in reliable sources, and we go with what reliable sources say. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Then why not state it as such? Explain what the president said and that people do not believe him? Plus in the case of David Duke the president has condemned him. I am fine with saying that these condemnations are seen as disengenious but they should be included or else we are relating a story that the president is being an unabashed racist (which given the frequent, albeit possibly insincere, denouncements would say he atleast would prefer a dog whistle to an air horn if he is a racist). Bgrus22 (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The Section also includes the phrase "However, many of his supporters say that his racist speech" if we want to be neutral then it shouldnt outright say racist speech, that is an allegation of speech and to be honest there are only allegations throughout this section with little actual counter points, meaning this section is largely narrative driven. Where is his condemnation of hate groups? This section needs an update or to be scrapped. Bgrus22 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Bgrus22, I agree that sentence should be rewritten, but just the one sentence, not the whole section. Do you have a proposed reword for that sentence? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Would deleting the word racist be enough for you? Unless we specifically outline that it is speech that some perceive a certain way I fear that would also be POV bias. Bgrus22 (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Bgrus22, maybe? I have to read those sources to see what exactly they're referring to. I believe his general speech patterns. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the existing language is a carefully worked out consensus after extensive and exhaustive discussion over multiple threads and RfCs. While it is true consensus can change, it is going to take a significant effort to achieve any kind of change in this instance. It's worth going back and looking at the talk page archive to see how we got to where we are now before proceeding with any sort of attempt to change the existing consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The word racist comes from the citation from the Nation. After a quick look through the site, a left leaning perspective, which is fine for an RS to have if the context allows it, is pretty obvious (even their wiki page has them marked out). Given the subject of the sentence, which is how his supporters address his speech, I feel this is a pretty dicey source to use...let alone directly quote to say that people are defending racist speech. The page as it is written now is claims that supporters are defending admittedly racist comments, but if we make a small change it could simply say the supporters defend comments that they do not perceive as racist but others do or that they are just defending comments in general. By calling the wording explicitly racist, in the context of people who are defending the comments you are advocating for the page to say that the Trump supporters are supporting racist speech instead of speech that some people are perceiving as racist. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It's like you didn't even read what I just wrote. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: how about I quote you from an archive on this talk page?

""About half of the American population assert that Trump is not racist." What does that have to do with anything? Countless reliable sources confirm that Trump is a racist who makes racist comments and performs racist acts, and the fact that "half of the America population" assert otherwise reflects poorly on them and their lack of understanding. The fact is that "Racial views" doesn't make any sense at all, so I think we need to agree that it needs to change. I'm just not yet sure what it needs to be changed to. "Racism and xenophobia" is a generic term that seems to suit, since the section essentially documents Trump's racist and xenophobic acts. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)"

Sounds like you have a pretty strong point of view on this... Regardless like the quote you used here purports people who are defending Trump largely are not defending what they see as racist, meaning the wiki page should be updated to reflect that. Also thank you for recommending to look through this, its an eye opener. Bgrus22 (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Everyone has a strong point of view on this, which is hardly a surprise given the subject matter. The fact remains, however, that the current language has come from a carefully worked out consensus preceded by a lot of discussion, so trying to get a change so early after the last one is likely a non starter. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Well then why not include your point in the page? Provide a balanced coverage of the topic while representing how RS cover the topic? Bgrus22 (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

In my view, the current language is just fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• User:Bgrus22 I will make the one specific change mentioned, at “his supporters say that his racist speech” to remove ‘racist’, as not appropriate by the cite TheNation and attribution needs of WP:LABEL... and see if it sticks. (Though that para seems to be loosely generalizing and neither an event nor BLP, so I think it alternatively it might be cut.). If you want more change, I think you’ll have to make similarly specific edit proposals. I don’t see any recent consensus on language here other than to use “characterized as” instead of declaring in wikivoice. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Thank you, and I like the new wording! Bgrus22 (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the new wording didn't work until I fixed it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Exercise, take 2

A recent discussion reached no consensus on how to mention Trump's exercise or lack thereof, but two options were deemed worthy of being discussed in a binary survey, so here it is. Which of these sentences should be tacked on to the first paragraph of Trump's "Health" section? — JFG ^talk 16:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Option A: Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.
• Option B: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course.

— JFG ^talk 16:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: Atsme proposed Option C: no inclusion. BullRangifer proposed Option D [1], which has elements of both A and B. starship.paint (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Survey

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Executive summary: There is clear consensus for inclusion of some mention of Trump's views on exercise, clear consensus in favor of option B and general consensus to include option D (both copied below).

There is a clear consensus that some mention of Trump's views on exercise should be included (i.e., consensus against 'option c: no inclusion') Next, I turned to evaluate the discussion regarding what to include; option A ('Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy'), option B ('He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course.'), or option D, which was proposed on 15 August, almost 2 weeks after this RfC was originally started.

Option D includes Option B in its entirety, as well as most of option A. Since it was introduced, multiple users who had previously !voted in favor of A, B, or C returned to express support for option D: A->D, B->D, C->D.

By a clear margin, there is consensus that option B (included within option D) should be included. Thus, the following sentence will be included:

He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course.

Option D includes an additional sentence, for which I see additional consensus in favor of inclusion:

He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise.

Thus, option D, including option B, is to be incoporated into the article. Let me know if there are any questions about this close. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

References

---

• Option B. If he says that golf is exercise for him, then he doesn't not does exercise. He just does not do a whole lot. We don't really have much of an option except to take his word for it here. Mgasparin (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Mgasparin: - hold up, it's not just his word. Here's White House Doctor Ronny Jackson in January 2018 [2] regarding Trump's exercise: "Some people exercise, some people don’t. Some people just haven’t done that as part of their routine. And I would say that’s the category he falls in right now" starship.paint (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  Starship.paint True. But just because he doesn't have a routine doesn't mean that he doesn't exercise. It just means that he doesn't really have a plan for exercising, apart from walking around the White House and golfing. Mgasparin (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Option D per BullRangifer's vote on 15 August. Second choice - option B. starship.paint (talk) - first voted 3 August, edited comment on 21 August.
• Option C - don't include - it does not have lasting encyclopedic value. If he dies from lack of exercise, then it will have lasting encyclopedic value. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC) ^{adding to my iVote: NOTCRYSTAL, NOTGOSSIP. Facts only, please - quote his doctor using in-text attribution if we include anything at all. 14:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)}

  Atsme, who dies from a lack of exercise? A lack of exercise is not a disease. Also - he already has a consequence of lack of exercise - he is obese. You don't need to die for it to be important. starship.paint (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly, and it's not encyclopedic, either. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Option B. I agree with the added wording suggested by starship.paint. I think the entire wording should be "Trump was judged in 2018 to lack a history of exercising routinely. He has called golf his "primary form of exercise". (I'm omitting the last part which says "although he usually does not walk the course". I think it is unnecessary.) Bus stop (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option B with the part regarding not walking the course..it is relevant to his health..if he has a heart attack things will change in the US probably dramatically 2600:1702:2340:9470:951D:EEE3:FE92:D97A (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  Even if he were to walk the golf-course it would be at a leisurely pace. Bus stop (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Option B.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option A Short and directly to the point of his health, which is the section it is in. Option B does not seem to have a direct connection to his health, just a random comment out of nowhere about how he plays golf. If people think Option A is too blunt and dismissive - since everyone gets at least some exercise - it could be reworded to "Trump does not have a formal exercise plan, viewing exercise as a waste of energy". -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option B – A weekly round of golf is a reasonable form of exercise for a 73-years-old fat male (even when riding a cart along, per NPR: Golf Is Exercise, Cart Or No Cart). Why people are so upset that Trump does not hit the gym is beyond me. Orange man bad, I guess. — JFG ^talk 15:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

That (your NPR link) is not how the orange cheater plays golf, cart or no cart. Upset? The reactions were more bemused than bothered; you don’t hear the opinion every day that human bodies are like non-rechargeable batteries. Millions aren’t losing any sleep worrying about Trump’s physical health, at least not until they remember Pence. Trump attached a flashing neon target to his ample rump by harping on other people’s health and by having his physicians put out press releases gushing about "the healthiest individual ever" and "could live to be 200," and then Mr. Stamina had the stretch golf cart brought around to be driven 700 yards down a gently sloping road in Taormina while other world leaders walked. Forget the fish; that’s like shooting a big fat whale in a barrel. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting - my Mom will be 96 next month - never exercised a day in her life - smoked 2 packs of cigs/day until she was in her 60s, retired last year, just drove 200 miles (each way) to see her great-great grandkids. It's all about genetics. Adhere to MEDRS, consensus from the AfD, and NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Following the ping, I reaffirm my choice of option B. Option D is too verbose, but if it is chosen, I would suggest trimming it to He considers exercise a waste of energy, not with the extra quote because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. — JFG ^talk 00:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Option A. I agree with MelanieN on this one; it's short and to the point, while the other option seems like a somewhat trivial comment about how he plays golf. --Tataral (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option A again. I thought, in fact, we already had a consensus for this. I hate it when we have duplicate surveys because people weren't happy with the way consensus went the first time. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Scjessey: You had a low-participation discussion that was not closed, leaving the consensus question a bit fuzzy. Your preference led but was then defeated by a different option in a higher-participation discussion, strongly suggesting that it led because of the low participation. In my uninvolved close of the second discussion, I judged that that fact invalidated the first discussion, so blame me. Surely, any consensus worth a damn isn't reversed when you ask a larger crowd three weeks later. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  After receiving a ping about new options, I'm just here to reiterate my view that option A is the way to go. My second choice, since that's apparently a thing now, would be to exclude all mention completely. Driving around in a golf cart is not exercise, and never will be. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Option B seems like the better of the two options, but whether it should really be included is a different question all together. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Emir of Wikipedia: - Option C has already been introduced. Feel free to argue for it instead. But "seems like the better of the two options" is essentially a democratic vote and one I would discard if I were to close this. Please say how or why it's better. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

B seems better to me as it includes more of the full context regarding Trump's exercise. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Option A is the better of the two, since it relates explicitly to exercise and his view of it. Option B is elevating a personal reflection to affirm, implicitly, that golf (walking or not) has anything to do with exercise or health. The article would be better with neither A nor B, but I guess that ship has sailed. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option D Changing after ping about new choices. It gives biographical information about his personality and thinking. I wouldn't include this kind of subjective detail in his Presidency or other articles, but in the bio it adds a certain je ne sais quoi. The article wouldn't suffer terribly if C we left this out. We know it cannot be B, because that is SYNTH. As such, that option B should not even be an RfC option. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option C or neither – What I am seeing here is that Trump either does not exercise (as I do sometimes but regularly), or he does and the exercise is not quite vigorous. I would say that he does exercise to some extent in the form of playing golf, but not a lot. Perhaps a better option would be to state his opinion on exercise and his rather tame golf activity—which partly contradicts his opinion. I can do with or without Option C, but I personally cannot choose either of the first two options, since A excludes his golf activity and B unsatisfactorily describes Mr. Trump's attitude on exercise, apart from his golfing. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 22:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option D or Option A equally - These are straightforward, comprehensive, and appropriate weight, and have the best sources. I agree with the analysis by MelanieN, Tataral, and SPECIFICO. I could live with A+B (i.e., all the content together) if necessary but that would not be my first choice. I oppose Option B— there is absolutely no reason to cite his own Tweets and "Golf News Net" when far better sources are available. And Option C (excising all reference to it whatsoever) has no policy-based backing at all. Neutrality^talk 22:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

A+B takes the cake! SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Option C. This is useless trivia that doesn't belong in a professional encyclopedia article. The article is already too long as it is, and useless trivia like this only compounds the problem. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option B - he does golf, that's well known. I still prefer it as more neutral in just saying what the exercise is. But I’m also still dubious that anything is needed. It seems like it was just put in as a means to do yet more sniping over trivial bits and is not a big part of his life or his coverage WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option B but favor Option C/Nothing - This is so uncyclopedic that I laughed out loud while reading the options. His frequent golfing could fit into the encyclopedia somewhere, so I'll side with Option B, but I'd prefer if "exercise" had nothing to do with its framing.LM2000 (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment for closing administrator. Comments suggesting that this info is somehow unencyclopedic should receive little or no weight. Inclusion of this material is consistent with the principle that an encyclopedic biography should incorporate content on various aspects of the subject's life. Our article Dwight D. Eisenhower spends one whole paragraph on golf playing, plus at least two more paragraphs on his oil painting and bridge playing. The article George Washington spends a paragraph, plus another sentence, on his equestrian skills, theater attendance, and other hobbies. The article Jimmy Carter notes that "Carter's hobbies include painting, fly-fishing, woodworking, cycling, tennis, and skiing." Neutrality^talk 04:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Option B, but favor Nothing at all. I think it's kind of ridiculous to put this in an encyclopedia but if it absolutely MUST be included, then I'd prefer the more informative option. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option A. The guy does not exercise. Stay short and concise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option A Use this as it is factual, (he's been quoted as such); not B, as it appears desperate to offer an editorial counter claim to negate any notion of exercise being taken. It also seems WP:OR. Bodding (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option B. Also -- mentioning both of his statements, or neither, would also be reasonable solutions.MaximumIdeas (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Nothing would be my first choice. Option B if I was forced to choose or both would also be acceptable if Option A was modified. Option A, as currently worded, is not specifically indicated by the sources it cites. The sources do not exactly say he does not exercise. They say (1) he does not use the fitness center in the White House and (2) he has given up athletics since college. To say he "does not exercise" would be synthesis, because what the sources say is that he believes that "exercise would be a waste of the energy" and depletes a human's "finite energy". That is not the same thing as he "does not exercise". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I like Option CD.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Coffeeandcrumbs: If you like it better than "Nothing", please modify your !vote to show it first. Throw the closer a bone, their job is hard enough already. And it can be shown as simply "Option D"; the strikethrough below was needed only to preserve context for ONUnicorn's Option C !vote below it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I rank my !vote in the following order D/C/B not A.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option B, but would prefer them combined in this fashion:

• Option CD: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise.

Writing "nothing" would be too simple, uninformative, and a bit misleading because he is actually anti-exercise, and my version covers the subject quite thoroughly without actually saying "anti-exercise". -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Option CD (above). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option B per above.. option B gives the facts concisely and letting the reader interpret the facts as they are. Otherwise option C do not include.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option D seems like the most accurate summary of the information we have. If forced to pick between the original two options, I would pick B. Loki (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option C - don't include. Unless other presidential articles discuss exercise, unless there is a focus in the administration on exercise, or unless there is a discussion the president's physical fitness programs for school children, I don't believe this is important enough to document. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 11:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources

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.

Discussion

To inform you, there are additional options for your consideration presented after your vote was cast: Option C (do not include) and Option D (see BullRangifer's vote). starship.paint (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Mgasparin, Bus stop, Jack Upland, and JFG: starship.paint (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• @MelanieN, Scjessey, Tataral, and Emir of Wikipedia: starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• @Neutrality, SPECIFICO, Rreagan007, and Markbassett: starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• @MaximumIdeas, Bodding, Snooganssnoogans, and Cosmic Sans: starship.paint (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• @Gamingforfun365 and LM2000: starship.paint (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

So do we have to !vote again? I reaffirm my preference for option A. Second choice, option C, do not mention. I oppose option D as TMI; a single sentence is enough for the Health section -- MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Why must there be a 'do over' on this? I can't believe that something this silly needed a RFA to begin with. As per Melanie, I reaffirm my choice of option A. Furthermore, once a question has been put to a vote, there are no other options to be put in. Who is making these decisions? Just because you don't like choices independent editors are taking, which is presumably why you have this ridiculous RFA to begin with, then that's it. That's the comment you requested. You don't then add in more options because you don't like the choices. Bodding (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It's an absurd way to do things, and we already "voted" on this in an earlier thread. Quite often, people insist on new RfCs (or messing around with existing RfCs) because they were unhappy with the earlier result. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The result should stand and that should be the end of it. Solved, decided, done. Next. . .Bodding (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree that options should have been selected before going to a vote. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss and JFG: Can we get a close on this RfC and let it archive? It's just sitting here now, and no one's commented for some time. Mgasparin (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll close it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort at closing, but I think we'd better leave that decision to an "outsider" -- will post a request. — JFG ^talk 11:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. FTR, my close is here. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

"Mental health of Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mental health of Donald Trump. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Move some of Investigation to Presidency ?

The discussion re the Special Counsel Investigation above makes it seem like there may be too much about it here for his BLP. (It wasn’t a life choice of his, has not had life-altering impact, and did not go on for an extensive percentage of his lifespan.). Yet there are 5 subsubsections involving this and 10 Main article or Further information links. So I will ask for thoughts re shrinking or moving some of it to improve the BLP and maybe elsewhere.

I am not BOLDly doing either because (a) This article is so controversial someone would revert no matter how good an edit it was and we’d just wind up here anyway; (b) What’s here seems MUCH more worked on and better done than the long droning on at Presidency of Donald Trump.

So... thought? Proposals for edits ?

• Please provide a signature. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Condense the Barr section of Special Investigation - It seems four paras added stepwise as events occurred (“On March 22”, “On March 24”, etcetera.) all about Barr detail with none of them being Trump actions or effects, and now that we’re after it would be time to summarize. I propose keep the line of report coming out on March 22, but then condense the longer paras of March 24 Barr letter and report release to a single line, and think keep the last para re Senate testimony of most recent status. This would drop out analyst opinions and Trump comments that now seem outdated. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion. I will take a look at what can be done. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Collect the associates and reduce Manafort - Just a tweak, but the second of two paras in Russian interference isn’t about Russian interference with the election, it’s about Trump associates and their contacts to Russians other than the interference. So I suggest move it down a screen to the associates section, and while doing that also reduce Manafort coverage from being the bulk in four of the five paras. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump claims that Democrats favor "executing" newborn babies

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=911205746&oldid=911178512

The cited reliable sources characterize it as "a staple of his rallies" and "what is fast becoming a standard, and inaccurate, refrain about doctors “executing babies,” and I can add "Trump repeats, falsely, that doctors, mothers decide to execute live babies after birth." and "at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Donald Trump repeated his absurd claim that pro-choice women and doctors are “executing” newborns." and "Trump’s comments Saturday — in which he repeated a claim that doctors are “executing” babies..." and "Trump repeated what has become one of the more frighteningly dishonest claims from the right lately regarding abortion..." The edit should be restored. soibangla (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Leave out. You forgot to mention the deletion comment “Undue anecdote of an isolated political incident”. This is just a tidbit from a rally, trivia and OFFTOPIC for a BLP. The Twitter-blog also isn’t a good RS to be pulling from. The USAtoday is good, but again that one politician misportrays the opposing side positions isn’t surprising, and this one particular April example is not particularly noted. NOTEVERYTHING applies, keep this bloated article more for major and Biographical items. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the deletion comment “Undue anecdote of an isolated political incident” Ahem. soibangla (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Soibangla "Ahem" ? What ?? You made a declaration of its untruth the section title but then said nothing about it. Not said as being the deletion comment, gave no counter-evidence to show DUE other than your personal denial, nor some additional article discussing how it is a non-isolated important or as it being personal rather than political, you're just giving a "yes it is" denying it and reiterating a bit from the same cites here and there. But that isn't responding at ALL to the comment which seems reasonable to me nor is it giving additional (better) sources. I don't think every snip from Politifact belongs here or can fit, and this seem not BLP and the exact quote given seems just a line in a rally of April that is not particularly DUE. Doing a Google on wrapping the baby beautifully I see only 23,000 hits ... this is a trivia item, does not deserve inclusion let alone detailed quotes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear explanations of how Politico+Associated Press(via USA Today)+New York Times (and likely more) fails WEIGHT. Anyone? A stronger argument, while still debatable, would be that this fails consensus #37. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - I'll offer one explanation for UNDUE of 'not widely covered' at least re this citing of this particular rally speech to the detail of quoting - and not just 'litle' coverage, the line "they wrap the baby beautifully" and Trump seems zero coverage in my usual breadth checks at BBC and Fox. I also see "no result" hits at CBS, NBCnews, ABCnews.go.com, WSJ, CBC.ca, LA Times, etcetera. Now if I change it to "you wrap the baby beautifully" I see hits for Florida in May -- saying it is a misrepresentation of what Northam said. Neither the April line nor the May line has much WEIGHT, it seems just a ding of the moment about someone ELSE's gaff that Trump said a couple times rather than any long history or big deal, so - other than us - nobody seems continuing coverage of it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware that WEIGHT requires wide coverage across all RS, or continuing coverage. These are things invented by Wikipedia editors extra-policy (and often applied inconsistently depending on whether the editor likes or dislikes the content in question). The sources cited, even if that's all there is, do not constitute the "extremely small minority" required by WEIGHT for omission. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

DUE clearly says “in proportion to the prominence” ... and that undue weight can be given by amount of text and depth of detail. So a full anecdotal blip plus quote for something most sources chose to not cover at all, and even the ones that did seem just one backpage mention? UNDUE anecdote of an isolated political incident sounds about right. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Absolutely belongs in Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, but unless this specific thing becomes biographically significant, it's hard to make a case for it to be in this main article. Trump tells so many shocking lies, it's rare that any single lie is notable enough for inclusion now, even one as outrageous as this one (which doubtless would've ended the presidency of any of his predecessors). A sad indictment on how bad things have become. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Definitely belongs. It's part of his use of anti-abortionists as a core voting block. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Move to other article. This is a biography, not a catalogue of lies by Trump. Just because it exits doesn't mean it belongs here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  It was already put in another article about 5 minutes before being added here [3].--MONGO (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Oh that again. Seems a persistent behaviour to copy-paste-paste-paste such. So we’re posting every anecdote on even teeny items and doing it repeatedly. *sigh*. Markbassett (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep it in. It is a massive issue. Currently there's just one sentence from 2016 in the article. zzz (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• It belongs, per those above saying keep. Probably with a trim. starship.paint (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Trump's personal position on abortion is already described in the article; there is no indication that it has changed since 2016, and he took no action as president to change any of the relevant laws. The quote I removed was indeed an anecdotal reaction to a story-of-the-day when some politicians made a fuss about a state decision on some medical cases. That is very much UNDUE for Trump's BLP, especially in light of consensus #37. This is not the "encyclopedia of everything Trump ever said at a rally or on Twitter". — JFG ^talk 21:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)That is very much UNDUE for Trump's BLP, especially in light of consensus #37. This is not the "encyclopedia of everything Trump ever said at a rally or on Twitter".

  @JFG: You said Trump's personal position on abortion is already described in the article; there is no indication that it has changed since 2016, and he took no action as president to change any of the relevant laws. That is incorrect. He is currently installing a rule that would deny Title X federal funds to any organization that even mentions abortion to patients, makes abortion referrals, or shares space with abortion providers.[4] As a result, Planned Parenthood is withdrawing from the Title X program, which provides affordable birth control; 1.5 million women use Planned Parenthood's family planning services.[5] This is an enormous triumph for abortion foes, who have been trying to defund Planned Parenthood for years. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  That is very much UNDUE for Trump's BLP, especially in light of consensus #37. This is not the "encyclopedia of everything Trump ever said at a rally or on Twitter". -- That is a circular, strawman argument. This is one of the small number of critical issues for Trump's political base and is widely and extensively reported in mainstream media. Accordingly, I shall reinstate unless substantive, policy-consistent objection is articulated here. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  That's "effective involved closer" reasoning. At this article, at least, involved editors don't close discussions (actually or effectively) except when there is a large numerical margin. By my reckoning there is currently a numerical margin of 1 for inclusion. FWIW, I don't recommend trying that again. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  Mandruss, I'm afraid I'm not following your thinking here. There's nothing to "close" here, formally or informally. This page is under the new Enforced BRD, not the consensus sanction you and JFG appear to be contemplating. But just as I don't see a substantive argument in JFG's objections above, I don't see any in yours. I'd like to hear some, so we could hash it out and have more confidence in the resolution. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  On the content issue, my few comments show me leaning include while giving a nod to #37. And that has substantive policy basis.

  As for process, I confess that I don't completely understand Enforced BRD. If it in fact permits an editor to edit in disputed content without consensus, because they have unilaterally judged opposing arguments from established editors as lacking merit, then I submit to that despite its appearing to suck in a big way, and only because I trust Awilley's judgment more than my own in the area of process. To my eyes that looks like disruption and an invitation to edit warring. I also have known JFG to show more than average respect for process, even when it doesn't serve his immediate ends (I can't say the same about you, regrettably), and the fact that he reverted you means that he also disagrees with your interpretation of Enforced BRD. All things considered, and subject to correction by Awilley, I currently think you're in the wrong on process. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  So, perhaps you and I (and others) +/- agree on the content. Maybe JFG will return and give a (more substantive) reason for opposing our view. Otherwise, I see no reason to keep it out. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  JFG is not the only opposer, and nobody is required to convince you or anybody else. While I disagree with his application of UNDUE (see User talk:Mandruss/Archive 7#Undue weight), I'm in a small minority on that. That means that the prevailing community view is that his argument has a policy basis, whether you agree with the argument or not. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that in that instance, UNDUE was not correctly applied. Hence my remark that it was a circular straw-man argument. In fact I think that the Awilley BRD sanction was intended to stop a minority from blocking improvement through compromise merely by saying "no consensus for your edit". We do seem to have consensus for inclusion, and there have been thougthful arguments for streamlining, but none for removal IMO. SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I find the stated reversion rationale "Undue anecdote of an isolated political incident" thoroughly specious, and we might not be having this conversation at all had that specious rationale not been invoked. soibangla (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm moving here my comments, and Muboshu's, from a section I mistakenly started below - not realizing that this discussion was about the same subject. I have also given this discussion a more informative heading. At issue is a paragraph devoted to Trump’s claim that mothers and doctors “execute” babies after birth. My own opinion: it’s frequent enough and significant enough to include, but it should be a single sentence in the existing “abortion” paragraph, not the full-length quotes of the proposed paragraph. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This can be more fleshed out on Political positions of Donald Trump. It's not biographical of Trump, aside from confirming he's a liar who will say anything to inflame tensions if he thinks its to his benefit. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason for its incorporation into this BLP. Elsewhere perhaps.--MONGO (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

So now we have a specious justification for reversion and "I don't like it." Gotta wonder if the real reason is "OMG, this is the most horrific thing he has ever said, we can't let anyone see it." soibangla (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Its related to his presidency so I believe it belongs in that subarticle.--MONGO (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe it should be included. It is quite a stunning statement. Gandydancer (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Well sourced and also one of his anti-abortion rally calls for his position on abortion. Has wide coverage and been used more than once. ContentEditman (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• No - Not in this article, at least. I agree with MONGO. This would be appropriate for Political positions of Donald Trump, but it is not biographical as it relates to Trump, so it should not be in the main article. As noted above, this article is not a compendium of everything he ever said or every political position he's ever taken. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep and add to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump: neither a "tidbit", nor "trivia", this is a significant statement, and is as integral to general knowledge as any other false claim by a POTUS. Lindenfall (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This statement is not UNDUE and is covered by multiple reliable sources and is reflection of Trump's character, hence it is appropriate for this article. Adding this to "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump" is also acceptable. Additionally, I think the argument that implies, or openly states, this is merely a passing anecdotal statement very inaccurate. I think this statement by itself is notable per independent sourcing in reliable sources. I also agree with the additions by soibangla because that was also actually said and covered in sources. In any case, the removed content should be restored. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

By weight in sources, Special Counsel investigation should be in lead

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.

---

By virtue of its weight in the reliable source record, the Special Counsel investigation and subsequent non-impeachment, and the associated controversy, scandal, et al., should be in the lead section as part of this man's life. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The investigation has been one of the most discussed events in his presidency so far, and I don't see it going away any time soon. Mgasparin (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too early to know lasting impact. What we "see" is irrelevant crystal-balling. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support, the investigation is extremely prominent. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC).
• Lean Oppose (for now) - While the investigation is tremendously prominent and has oodles of WP:WEIGHT, can we really say it has had a significant impact on Trump's life? We need sources that specifically say that the investigation has directly impacted his life and/or his presidency. There are definitely articles that talk about how the investigation has prevented Trump from fully executing his agenda, and they would be a good place to start, but I can't support just plopping the fact of the investigation into the lead until those conditions are met. Much will depend on whether or not Trump is impeached, because the investigation will be a prominent component of that, but unless and until that happens, we're just feeding the Speculatron™. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Mostly... saying what? I’m inclined against buying into something sight unseen, just by the sales description. Perhaps the proposal means: “There was an investigation seeking ‘collusion’ of his campaign and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that he denounced as a politically motivated Witch-hunt. It found no conspiracy but considered aspects of his opposition as potentially Obstruction of justice. “. Also - that it had no collusion or impeachment or other impact on his life and isn’t something he did inclines me to think it just shouldn’t get much coverage in his BLP, that instead the amount of content on this should be reduced and it be a short body mention that points to the article(s) about it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, not prominent at all. But along the lines of Scjessey and Markbassett if something happens with it then by all means. PackMecEng (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Possibly support some brief inclusion of the investigation. Oppose mention of "subsequent non-impeachment, and the associated controversy, scandal, et al.". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Scjessey. If, for example, Trump was impeached due to the special counsel investigation then it would make sense to put it in the lede. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This was in the news literally every day for two years-plus and was all over other media from youtube to Saturday Night Live. Anyway the mention here would be brief due to the several other related articles that can be linked for detailed information on the investigation. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The investigation owes its oodles to Trump's existence and association with it, but Trump and his image are virtually the same in its wake as they were in its upsurge. Not a mutual boost. It's like how Bigfoot or Elizabeth II belong upfront in articles about TV shows, books and "experts" revolving around them, but these coattailers/ripples/satellites appear tucked deeper down in the main subjects' bodies. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - certainly, the case for inclusion is weakened since he wasn't indicted (yet, keeping in mind he wasn't exonerated on obstruction of justice). But re-reading the lede, especially the last paragraph, I conclude that this investigation probably trumps several of those items in the last lede paragraph and is certainly a defining feature of his presidency and by weight in sources. starship.paint (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Also keep in mind, the report didn't exonerate anybody it studied and was never supposed to. Weighs the same for everyone, that absence of fact. The last paragraph is about stuff he did do, so not fair to compare. Experts feeling he might be obstructive or collusive should be weighed against experts feeling he might be surprising, lying or racist. Maybe fits in that paragraph. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support but only brief coverage of the investigation. There's not much room for more in the lead. The investigation is now part of Trump's legacy. Also, coverage of non-impeachment and associated controversy (drama) should be no more than a short sentence. Besides, all the stuff in the lead is kind of old news - we do need to be current (imho). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support brief coverage (about two lines) of the investigation and its outcome. — JFG ^talk 07:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The special counsel investigation has been over for almost 6 months now and so far nothing has really come of it. Unless/until the Democrats in the House actually get around to at least holding impeachment hearings, it's just not consequential enough to belong in the lead. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign

List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign and List of post-election Donald Trump rallies were nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Exercise, take 3?

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.

---

Somehow in the last RFC about this, 27 !votes got morphed into ‘consensus’ #40 to include a remark about “batteries” that only 7 of the 24 spoke for. This tossed both the User:JFG option that was the prior leader, and the User:Mandruss initial ‘no consensus’ conclusion.

I know it’s not a vote, but I’m not seeing “general consensus to include option D”. I’m wondering if there actually is definite consensus *against* this line.

So ... for the circa three-quarters who did not ask for this “batteries” phrase, are you opposed to that ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Obviously, I was “Option B” and willing to go option C (nothing), and feel no consensus for adding “batteries”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - I undid your redirect to ‘how to challenge closing’ as not helping my seeking the view of !optionD folks. It’s not at the point of a challenge, it’s a discussion. (If it seems #40 closure is a heartache, it may be another like consensus #39... but at the moment it is a question to see if participants of the event actually are opposed to D or not.). I will presume lack of your own views on the question as a ‘didn’t say D but no objection’, feel free to say here if instead you meant you want this challenged or something else. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: There is a reason that the guidance does not include going back to the participants to ask for opinions about a closure. The reason is the same as the reason why we have uninvolved closers – what would be the point of having an uninvolved closer if the closure must meet the approval of involved editors? Your actions are improper and I'll ask that another editor revert your revert of the close of this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - whether it fits WP:CONSENSUS or is an issue is only available from asking participants. The change to a closure you are pointing at mentions “multiple editors asking”... which *is* talking of participants opinion. This was just a weird way to close, so I am asking. (As a sidebar, procedurally if closure could fix the editing malf of no separate closure sidebar statement, the close instead overwrote the rfc lead would also be nice.) While I am dubious that the close is a reasonable summation of the discussion (e.g. multiple editors wanting shorter) or that option B plus A plus batteries increased acceptability to more than option B alone, the only way to know is to ask participants. Or else just skip to #36 approach of wait a month for yet again it is RFC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The change to a closure you are pointing at mentions “multiple editors asking” - That refers to early close, linking to Wikipedia:Snowball clause. This was not a case of SNOW. Please read the guidance more carefully before citing it.

whether it fits WP:CONSENSUS or is an issue is only available from asking participants. - Absolutely false. When there is a closer, consensus is assessed by the closer, not the participants.

That's where I stopped reading. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Closed again at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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

@Markbassett: I'd advise you to open a separate thread if you want to discuss the appropriateness of quoting Trump's "body is like a battery" remark. Re-hashing the closed RfC is counter-productive, but a tweak to the current text may be discussed separately. — JFG ^talk 09:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

User:JFG Thanks, though not exactly sure if that is a simpler partial that will get some of the input or would also get not allowed. I’ve asked Mandruss in his talk to clarify his issue rather that this whackamole, and if overall response stays positive I will give this idea a try. I suppose otherwise I must ask each of the 21 individually by talk, or else just wait and observe as this topic seems a recurring one. As I said in the text Mandruss deleted, mechanisms for challenging simply aren’t my question and won’t give me those people’s views. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Mandruss is right about the process, and JFG is right about how to proceed from here. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Request change to Current Consensus #35

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.

---

Because this lead sentence:

Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.

wikilinks to the Veracity article, which shows extensive falsehoods during his business career, I request #35 and the lead be changed to:

Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his business career, campaign and presidency.

soibangla (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

This is an obvious improvement. Soibangla, please consider modifying this request to add the improvement offered by Bullrangifer, namely, to add "and academics" to the list of those who have identified falsehoods. Please see the recent history for the text.

To reiterate what I said in my edit summary restoring Soibangla's improvement: We are not obligated to keep the "consensus" from the list when an uncontroversial improvement is offered. The consensus list merely allows for other versions to be reverted ad libitum and obviously should only be used when there is some objection to the newer version. The assertion that it is a newer version, i.e. deviates from what's in the list, is not a substantive reason to reject the new version where it improves the text. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You are presenting your opinion, that something "obviously" improves the article, as fact. That's the fatal flaw in your reasoning. Only consensus can decide whether something improves the article. If the improvement is "obvious", new consensus is fairly easy and straightforward. The corollary: If new consensus is not fairly easy and straightforward, the improvement was not "obvious" after all. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss, the 1RR exemption you refer to in this edit summary is valid and is listed in the fine print, collapsed at the bottom of the sanctions template. ~Awilley (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding "career", but might be superfluous, since the last couple of decades seem to have been in preparation for his campaigning for president. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm fairly neutral to this change; however, I would argue that the notable part of his mendacity is that he has lied to the American people as a politician at an unprecedented level. The fact that he lied as a businessman is less notable and less well documented, and so an argument could be made that the sentence should remain as it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO and Soibangla: Please do not implement changes to consensus material while it is still being discussed at the talk page. IIRC both of you have done this before. This page is under restrictions for a reason. It has a list of agreed-upon consensus wording for a reason. Just because you think something is a good idea does not trump previous consensus - and does not empower you to go ahead and unilaterally put in your preferred “improvement”. Discussion here at the talk page will determine whether these items can be changed. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Awilley has called our attention to these particulars in the sanctions notice here:

• Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
• Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Please cite where I have "implement[ed] changes to consensus material while it is still being discussed at the talk page." As has been noted by others before, editors cannot be expected to be aware of every Talk discussion that has ever transpired. soibangla (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I believe that is not what the 1RR exemption says and I believe that is not in the spirit of the new 24-hour BRD that replaced "consensus required". In a nutshell, I believe that while the exemption gives any editor the right to revert to an enumerated consensus, it does not require that. So under the new 24-hour BRD an uncontroversial edit to a consensus item can be made. Then if anyone disagrees strongly enough to revert that edit, discussion can occur on the talk page. I'll also note on this page that the editor who reverted the improvements did not offer any substantive objection, but only wished to assert his view as to the "letter of the law", which view (I believe) was mistaken. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Another proposal

My own opinion: I would not add "and business career" because the intense coverage of his falsehoods - and the heavy attention by fact checkers - has been only during his campaign and presidency. Sure, he told a lot of lies as a businessman, but that's not unprecedented. And it did not become an important part of his public image until his campaign and presidency. I would add "and academics" to the sources testifying to this situation. I would be careful to word the sentence so as to make it clear which sources are doing the debunking (mainly fact checkers) and which are evaluating the situation as unprecedented (media and academics but not fact checkers). -- MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:UpdateNerd made a proposal above which comes very close to what I am suggesting: During his career, campaign, and presidency, Trump has made many false or misleading statements, which have been debunked by fact-checkers and widely described by the media as unprecedented in American politics. Make it “the media and academics” and I fully support this proposal. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

So to make my proposal clear, it is During his career, campaign and presidency, Trump has made many false or misleading statements, which have been debunked by fact-checkers and widely described by the media and academics as unprecedented in American politics. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

More NPOV to eliminate the last part,and widely described by the media and academics as unprecedented in American politics.--MONGO (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. Trump is responsible for the rise of independent fact checkers as a prominent voice in political discourse. Guy (help!) 16:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact checkers were not held at gunpoint to check facts. That every obviously ridiculous boast, campaign bloviation and fantastical and overt redirection has been lumped in with obvious lies is telling.--MONGO (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Trump lies more than any other politician (academics say so). the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented This itself has contributed to the coverage. No violation at NPOV, we use attribution. starship.paint (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope. We’ve shown “lie” as avoided by RS before, so that assertion is factually not V acceptable content. The ‘frequency, degree’ etcetera looks familiar but not seeing it in section 6.3 — is that a quote of just one person with some particular importance? Doesn’t seem like factually correct, easy enough to think of whoppers larger in degree or impact than anything dinged to Trump. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That's just one particular academic source, they are more. Let me know when you start bringing sources to the table (to advocate for the removal of widely described by the media and academics as unprecedented in American politics) rather than just assertions. starship.paint (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

it did not become an important part of his public image until his campaign and presidency The Veracity article shows otherwise. That his public profile was elevated by his candidacy does not detract from that. He was a nationally-known figure before 2015.soibangla (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• User:MelanieN Oppose changing. First, the sentence as written is “in American politics” - speaking about his 1990s business as “unprecedented in American politics” neither makes sense nor is it supported by V. Second, Consensus #35 is already showing five discussions and nothing seems changed, certainly nothing is stating the proposal based WP:LEAD on body content changes. Third, the vast bulk of coverage begins in 2016 as mentioned and wrapped up in partisan politics and fake news or playing to niche audiences - just factually the business had no part in the fact-counts and such so it’s misleading to conflate them. This all seems just somebody having a whim without much thought. Please don’t encourage making #ed consensus, lead, or debates run on whims. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose change – Too much detail for the lead. If anything, this convoluted phrasing about fact-checkers and "unprecedented" stuff should be made shorter, not longer. — JFG ^talk 12:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Our lead currently says "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics." My proposed change says the same thing, only shorter and less convoluted: "During his campaign and presidency, Trump has made many false or misleading statements, which have been debunked by fact-checkers and widely described by the media and academics as unprecedented in American politics." One sentence, and “academics” added. (I see I had mistakenly included “career” which I actually do not think should be here. My apologies; I have struck it.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the man, not just the president. His falsehoods during his long business career, when he was a nationally-known figure, as documented in Veracity, which the sentence wikilinks to, should be included. soibangla (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that his falsehoods during his business career may not have been too far out of the norm for business people. I don't see any media or academic sources saying that the dishonesty of Private Citizen Trump was unprecedented. It is the unprecedented nature of his dishonesty as a politician and president that makes this lead-worthy. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Many of his business career falsehoods have been critiqued. People who worked for/with him have called him a fabulist since he first splashed onto the New York scene. He’s caused much eye-rolling for decades. He’s notorious. Read Veracity. soibangla (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. As of the erection of Trump Tower, with Trump's destruction of artifacts he'd pledged to preserve, Trump was characterized as a liar in the mainstream press. We're talking nearly 40 years ago. Anyway, here on WP we value our readers who are truth-telling business people, so when we write about the rare businessman who is less truthful, we should make the distinction. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: No offense meant, but your proposed change is still quite convoluted and (in my opinion) overly detailed for the lead section. I'd suggest something sharper like Fact-checkers have determined that Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaign and presidency., but I'm afraid that would require yet another RfC, and we're going through RfC fatigue here… — JFG ^talk 20:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That would fail an RfC or even an informal discussion. There is too much of a consensus here that it needs to be pointed out, in the lead, that his dishonesty is unprecedented. Otherwise it immediately invites the rebuttal "well, all politicians lie." But he is unique. NO politicians, at least in modern American experience, lie like Trump. Not even close. As for the various proposals to reword this, it is clear none of them has consensus and we might as well move on to other things. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If "unprecedented" must be there, we could say this: Fact-checkers have determined that Trump has made an unprecedented number of false and misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. — JFG ^talk 23:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No, that doesn't work. The fact-checkers just determine whether a statement is true or false; they don't generalize. It's the media and academics that say, whoa, this is unprecedented! -- MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree. And worse, it insinuates that it's just these "factcheckers, compound operatives akin to "streetsweepers" or Fuddruckers, who have a problem with his statements. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Duh, yeah, let's move on. — JFG ^talk 00:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Only two days wasted. Not too bad this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: An unprecedented amount of laughing occurred when I read that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Art of the Deal authorship in lead

The lead currently states: He co-authored several books, including The Art of the Deal. I propose this be changed to the following: He released several ghostwritten books, including The Art of the Deal. There was a previous discussion on this topic here that got very heated/convoluted, which I'd ideally like to avoid repeating, but the basic case for the change is this: reporting by The New Yorker (the gold standard of a reliable source) establishes that Trump did not write any of it, and additional sources establish the same for his other books. - Sdkb (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Going into a little further detail regarding The Art of the Deal, the New Yorker reporting cites the publisher and ghostwriter, who both maintain Trump was not involved in the writing process, plus mixed statements by Trump himself (which I'd argue should be given little weight given his record). There was some discussion about the semantics of "co-author" versus "ghostwriter", since Tony Schwartz was officially listed as a co-author of the book. The salient point for me is that both the WP article on ghostwriting and most dictionaries state that the term encompasses writing where the true author is given some acknowledgement but not full credit, and it is preferable to "co-author" because it more clearly communicates to readers the basic fact of Trump's non-involvement. - Sdkb (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Don’t be silly — User:Sdkb Author is given by the book itself, and by the copyright. All else is irrelevant, but I have to add that for author (creator) it was Trump’s project, title, material, and self-aggrandizing, and that Schwartz was hired — and suggest you look at what the articles say about Author versus Ghostwriter. The collaborator, researcher, proofreader, copyeditor, whatever normally gets some mention as a courtesy. That Schwartz got cover credit is more than seems usual. There is no obligation to even name the hired worker(s) at all - though that might cause a stir, see the “ThankYouGate” of Hillary Clinton It Takes a Village Ghostwriter controversy. If you find any contemporary claim disputing Trump has a claim to Author then fine - but if all you have is post-2015, I would suggest that has to be viewed with suspicion of it being politically tainted. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it. Proposal would be excessive and denial is primary, OR, and inconsistent with longstanding consensus at the books's WP article. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support SPECIFICO's edit - "publish" is the right way to phrase this without getting caught up in the brambles. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with "published", but "co-authored" is also fine. Subsequent sections of the article deal with the specific circumstances of Trump's role in these books, and both "published" and "co-authored" are factually correct. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 15:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere have I seen Wikipedia state as fact that Trump co-authored this book. So, no it is not fine, right? SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree that "co-authored" is factually inaccurate, but if I'm being particularly pedantic you could argue "published" isn't accurate either. Trump isn't a publisher, is he? A better way of putting it would be this:

He has had several books published, including The Art of the Deal.

By saying he's had them published, we get around the fact he is not a publisher. Nor does it falsely claim he co-authored/wrote any of these books. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Markbassett's reasoning above, which is that co-authorship is determined by the book itself and the copyright. It is not necessarily depending on how active, if at all, that co-author was. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 19:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That's sort of academic. Do we have sources that say Trump wrote the book? No. Do we have sources saying Trump co-authored the book? No. Do we have sources that say Schwartz wrote the book? Yes. But saying it was Schwartz's book would be silly, hence the use of the word "published" to remove all need for inaccuracy or awkwardness. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There's actually quite a lot of reliable sources that describe Schwartz as Trump's co-author. [[6]] But it's all beside the point as I think the consensus is moving toward "published", which is fine by me. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 20:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

When I drafted out my proposal for this section, I actually initially used "published" rather than "released", but I changed it due to the same thought Scjessey had. I think "released" gets around the potential confusion of "published" and sounds less awkward than "had published". I still oppose "co-authored" — regardless of how authorship is technically established, the typical reader will interpret it to mean Trump was actively involved in writing the book, and will thus be misled.

Regarding "ghostwritten", I understand the desire to not get caught up in the controversial brambles, but I don't think our desire to avoid controversy should be reason to allow Trump to bluster his way into receiving undue credit. I reiterate that his non-involvement in the writing of the books attributed to him is an essential fact to communicate to readers, and if "ghostwritten" accurately describes what took place (as I argued above), we should use it, not seek less descriptive language that blurs the issue to avoid ruffling feathers. Sdkb (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think our desire to avoid controversy should be reason to allow Trump to bluster his way into receiving undue credit. I think that if we're looking to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS perpetrated by Donald Trump, there are probably more fruitful avenues. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 12:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Nice try, but that policy refers to moral wrongs, whereas in this case we're talking about a factual inaccuracy, which it absolutely is WP's role to correct. I probably could've chosen better language, but the distinction stands regardless. Sdkb (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't be silly about published either - again, matter of record and it's right in the book - Ballantine Books (of Random house ?) is the publisher, the ones who paid both authors Trump and Schwartz royalty money. Look, we have legal copyright, the book itself, plenty of RS, and routine precedents for Ghostwriters. Against that is a disputed verbals that are not going anywhere, and some OR trying to reinvent the whole terminology just for this one person. Or are we proposing to take away all of Clintons books and half of Obamas and Bush and so on ? I doubt we can even identify all the ghostwriters. Give it up -- facts are the book is officially by Donald J. Trump with Tony Schwartz. Copyright held by Trump. Published by Ballantine books. Making change back to that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Great! Except consensus is going a different way. It doesn't matter that Trump holds the copyright, he still didn't write it. Scooter Braun holds the copyright to Taylor Swift's back catalog and he obviously didn't write that either. Moreover, how books are credited in other articles has no bearing on how they are credited in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett:Please see my comment above in which your arguments are refuted. You're repeating those arguments, based on a primary source and your own OR. As noted, your "consensus" justification for reinserting the prior text, text that nobody else has said they prefer, is incorrect. Moreover, this article is no longer on "consensus required", and the new 24-hour BRD is designed to prevent a single editor from blocking constructive improvement by claiming "no consensus" when the only disagreement comes from one editor or a small minority. Also WP:WHATABOUTISM. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that last bit doesn't hold water. Particularly in the AP2 area, an editor who repeatedly claimed "no consensus" when the only disagreement comes from one editor or a small minority would be a fairly straightforward topic ban. That's classic disruption, and we don't need creative new sanctions to deal with it. I'm fairly certain that is not what the new 24-hour BRD is designed to do. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

As I read it, there is no clear consensus here. That might be improved by a survey; and we've RfCed less significant things than this. In my opinion, Markbassett is not clearly out of line to assert "no consensus" (yet) in this case. I don't think he's saying we should stop trying for a consensus; if he is, I would disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with "published", or "had published". Trump's misuse of the English language has grown legendary, after all; he writes like he talks. Lindenfall (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse Scjessey's proposal as the most accurate. starship.paint (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Published seems most accurate.--MONGO (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support "He published several books, including The Art of the Deal." — JFG ^talk 07:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion notice

Please join a discussion at Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Sharpie-gate, about the recent addition of almost 700 words of content about Hurricane Dorian, Trump, and Alabama. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing! soibangla (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Economy and trade

There was some consensus for this previously but since it's been a few months, I think I should raise this again at the talk page. Would there be any objection to changing the following paragraph:

The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through Trump's first two years in office, although it did not accelerate as Trump had promised during his campaign. Trump had asserted that a policy of tax cuts and deregulation would result in 3% annualized GDP growth, and perhaps much higher, but it reached a high of 2.9% in his second year, while the average growth rates of job creation and inflation-adjusted weekly earnings were considerably lower than during the preceding four years. Economists were nevertheless impressed with the continued strength of the economy nearly ten years into its expansion, as the unemployment rate continued declining, to below 4%, amid only modest inflation. The Dow increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office, the second best performance of any president since Gerald Ford, exceeded only by Barack Obama's 48.6% gain. While in office, Trump has repeatedly and falsely characterized the economy during his presidency as the best in American history.

With this?:

Economic growth has continued during Trump's term as president. In attempts to further stimulate growth, his economic policies have largely centred around tax cuts and deregulation, which he has credited for economic growth as high as 2.9% in his second year, although rates of job creation and household earnings have been lower than during the four years preceding his presidency. The unemployment rate has also continued declining, to below 4%, amid relatively low inflation, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office.

I encourage further improvements but I think this goes a long way to reducing the editorial style and creating a more encyclopaedic summary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This matter has been thoroughly and exhaustively discussed and you have repeatedly failed to establish consensus to change the content. soibangla (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There hasn't been any exhaustive discussion, unless you're considering the extended discussions you and I had with each other. There was a majority in favour of change last time, but as that was a while ago I have decided to take this to the talk page again. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Per Awilley: "OK, that's enough reverting. You obviously haven't found consensus for this edit, and continuing to revert it back every day or two will likely result in some sort of sanction against you." soibangla (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I really don't wish to argue about any of our previous arguments. They already admitted that they were looking at a different discussion than the then-recent one. Please just keep the discussion here to the subject at hand, even if it's critical, rather than about myself personally. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The edit you propose now is the same edit Awilley told you less than two months ago you clearly did not have consensus for, after you sought his/her assistance to restore it, after your reversions had been repeatedly rejected and you had been admonished about it. There was a majority in favour of change last time Actually, some editors proposed a variety of changes, but together they did not result in a consensus on the final form for the paragraph, so the long-standing version prevailed. And here we go... again. soibangla (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Even a cursory reading of the proposed alternative reveals multiple POV twists, turns, omissions, and "only modest reduction" in length! I agree with Soibangla. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Thanks for the feedback. Could you tell me what you think the POV twists and omissions are? While I do think brevity is an advantage, this is not about reducing the length of the prose. Who are you quoting when you say "only modest reduction"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. OK, some specifics: 1. What makes you say that Trump's policies are "attempts to stimulate growth" when most RS say they are payday for his donors and a boost to the capital markets? Then, 2. "as high as 2.9%? That's as low as "high" has ever gotten -- extensively discussed in the mainstream press and comment. Then 3, we have the "low inflation" which is now increasingly discussed, including by the US central bankers, as a major policy concern, because Trump/McConnell's massive diversion of cash to the wealthy threatens to precipitate the mother of all liquidity traps, with negative interest rates on the horizon. So, I agree with Scjessey, below, that the shortened version is unduly flattering and not NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Attempting to stimulate growth is not mutually exclusive with wanting to reward donors or capital generally. We could certainly add that these are supply side economics. 2. I'm fine with providing the lowest growth as well as the highest, or an average figure. 2.9% is not a low rate of growth at all. 3. I'm not sure what your disagreement is. All I said was that inflation is low, which you seem to agree with. I am not crediting this or anything to Trump. Is there anything you think I've ommitted? When I get back onto a computer I can hopefully write prose that incorporates your concerns. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but the proposed alternative is laughably hagiographic. It paints an unrealistic picture of reality. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Scjessey, can you tell me what you think of this is hagiographic? There is more criticism of Trump than praise here, but I am open to including further substantive criticism. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

All of it. Your proposed rewrite omits key information and context, and paints "Trump's economy" in a flattering light. I'm not opposed to some sort of change, but this would seem to go in exactly the wrong direction. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Scjessey Please tell me what in particular I omit that you think should remain in some way. If you think there is valid criticism of Trump that I have not included, I would definitely like to know. Overall what I've written says that the positive economic indicators are continuations of the economy rather than caused by him, and I haven't said that they are caused by his actions. I think we might want to add a sentence about inequality, but I wanted to just keep to what was already mentioned in the original paragraph. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Prefer the newer material but think it should not overlook the the huge stock gains under Obama for the sake of comparison.--MONGO (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I would rather remove the mention of the Dow Jones entirely, since I don't think it's particularly relevant in evaluating how the government has impacted the economy. We can make him look good by comparing it to the average or we can make him look bad by comparing him to Obama, whose presidency started when the stock exchange was abnormally low. I don't think we should make Trump look like anything but rather let the facts tell the story. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Prefer the newer material, just data without added OR combinations and comparisons that seem not DUE, unnecessary, and about trying to WP:SYNTH find some way to portray good things as bad. Just keep it simple - statistics about Trump here, leaving statistics about Gerald Ford in his article, and numbers about Obama in his article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Old paragraph. I can't remember my old position on this topic, but re-reading both paragraphs, I can't see a single change I would support. The new version omits crucial context established by the old version. Of the new version, this: credited for economic growth as high as 2.9% in his second year is particularly problematic, the wording seems to suggest that 2.9% is a high number. Trump's promises, and assertions, are certainly important for his own biography. starship.paint (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm still asking for changes to be made here. I don't see the implication in the wording but I'm happy to change that. We can say "of" instead of "as high as" to remove that possible implication. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. However, the rest of your text still removes things I think should be kept. Therefore I cannot support that. starship.paint (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Thank you for the feedback, which things removed do you think should be kept? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: - everything, really (I did say that above). I would not trim any content from that paragraph, sorry. starship.paint (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I submit that the creation of this topic constitutes WP:TENDENTIOUS ("repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions"), an effort to re-litigate a matter — over and over — that has long been settled. I suggest this topic be closed and the current content retained, until perhaps the end of Trump's third year when it can be updated and revisited. soibangla (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Did we have an Rfc previously on this? I always think it is best when issues keep coming up to create an Rfc to bring in fresh voices.--MONGO (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The last discussion on this resulted in a majority supporting the change, but I didn't get around to instituting it. I have not frustrated proper processes, I am correctly using the proper process here. I haven't yet attempted to insert or delete any content related to this particular discussion either. I am seeking the advice of other editors to create a consensus improvement on the article. You should declare that you wrote the original paragraph entirely, as this is clearly influencing your attempts at disrupting this discussion with petty arguments.

If you disagree with my proposed changes, you can simply indicate that respectfully as other editors have done. Discussion is still clearly ongoing and I thank all the editors who have responded with their constructive feedback. I will certainly incorporate what they are saying into a new paragraph that a consensus can agree with. I care deeply about presenting economic information to a wider public, which is why I am choosing this section to focus on. This is absolutely not a personal reflection on you or your abilities as an editor. Most of all, please keep remarks to the discussion at hand rather than about myself personally. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The last discussion on this resulted in a majority supporting the change No, it did not, as Awilley explicity admonished you, as I clearly showed above, but which you repeat of pattern of ignoring and pivoting to something else, which might explain why you say I really don't wish to argue about any of our previous arguments, so instead you come back again and open a new argument as if all the other ones never happened. As I explained earlier, some editors proposed a variety of changes, but nothing condensed into a consensus, and your verbiage, which you propose again here, was rejected. You should declare that you wrote the original paragraph I did, long ago, but pride of authorship is not the issue here. Despite your previous assertion that it's very poor in explaining economics, I explained to you that it doesn't attempt to do that, but I am defending it because I am educated, trained, skilled and experienced in these topics and my work has been intensely scrutinized by countless executives for many years and I am confident that your language is inferior for a good number of reasons, as I have exhaustively explained to you, but you repeatedly dodge and pivot and run to an admin, then lay low for a while and come back and do it all over again. And you think no one should make any comments about your behavior as an editor? Enough, already. soibangla (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I already addressed this. The person you quoted admitted they were looking at the wrong discussion. I was referring to disclosing the authorship in this particular discussion, not previous ones, but that's irrelevant now. I'm only interested in discussing changes to the article. You're welcome to comment on my talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Fact-checkers in lead (Current consensus #35)

The lead reads: "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics."

I suggest removing the mention of fact-checkers and combining the two sentences for brevity (as reverted here). The fact-checkers are mentioned at the linked Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, and the reports are in the body with citations, which seem missing in the lead. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

So, your current version, UpdateNerd is:

Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency, which the media has widely described as unprecedented in American politics

However, seven of the sources for unprecedented are not the media but academics (so academics should be reflected): Carole McGranahan / "historians" / Michael R. Beschloss / "White House scholars and other students of government" and George Edwards / Douglas Brinkley / Heidi Taksdal Skjeseth / Donnel Stern - starship.paint (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: No, I can't agree to that. Making it sound as if it is only the media that finds Trump's statements to be false or misleading fits in with Trump's "fake news" narrative. It is important that the lead of the article informs readers, in no uncertain terms, that it is a fact that Trump tells lies on an unprecedented level. That's why it is important to note that a variety of academics and scholars, not just the media, have said this. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Those sentences are the result of extensive discussion earlier this year. That's enough consideration for awhile. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The content is fine, as is, but if any improvement were to be made, this would help:

• "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, the media, and academics, who have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics."BullRangifer (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  BR's version better reflects the sources and should be the article text as of now. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  @BullRangifer: - aren't fact-checkers part of the media? Anyway, check the sources in this article, no fact-checker says unprecedented starship.paint (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Here's one way to incorporate some of the above points & combine two sentences:

"During his career, campaign, and presidency, Trump has made many false or misleading statements, which have been debunked by fact-checkers and widely described by the media as unprecedented in American politics." UpdateNerd (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

unprecendented has to stay. starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) That drops the important point, arguably the most important point, that the phenomenon is widely described as unprecedented. This is clearly an important part of the existing consensus if you read that discussion.

This is why we avoid rehashing things that have already been thoroughly "hashed" not too long ago. We have been over all of this at length, and what we have is good enough that our time is better spent on things that need our attention more. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've re-added that above. I thought there was some dispute over whether our sources actually say "unprecedented", but the ones linked above clearly do. To be clear, my goal isn't to change the information but to combine two sentences into one in a long lead of a long article. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Arguably detrimental, as two shorter sentences are easier to read and comprehend than one long one. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case, I'd suggest we use a semi-colon instead of a period to make it more obvious that the two statements are part of one idea. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't the words "The statements" beginning the second sentence make that obvious enough? For me at least, the difference between a comma and a semicolon is a single pixel, and I'm afraid my vision isn't good enough to see one pixel clearly. So I would have to analyze context to determine that that comma is probably a semicolon. Again, we're rehashing something that – at best – doesn't really need rehashing. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Every other sentence in the paragraph is a separate idea. So randomly using two sentences near the end of the paragraph to explain a single idea is somewhat confusing upon the first read. Just a stylistic thing, but a semicolon could help. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I just disagree. As I just said, I believe that a semicolon could do more harm than good. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Or as Kurt Vonnegut said, "Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college." UpdateNerd (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I would disagree with Vonnegut. I think they serve a useful grammatical purpose in relatively rare situations. Sadly, the visual ambiguity thing makes me want to avoid their use whenever there is a reasonably acceptable alternative. I feel this is such a case. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. Leave it alone. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Minor typo under Presidency > Domestic Policy

Thank you for catching that typo Mgasparin (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"He withdraw the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations" Withdraw should be withdrew. I don't have 500 edits so I can't edit the article myself. Thanks. Johnmyster (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)  Done Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Include accounts of Donald Trump not being a racist

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.

---

There are many people who know Donald Trump (including to a personal level, and including many people of colour) who say that Donald Trump is not a racist. I think these accounts should be mentioned in the 6.4 Racial views section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbruen (talk • contribs) 22:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Donald Trump has stated several times that he is “the least racist person”. He has improved the lives of minorities more than any modern presidency with his economic policies (lowest unemployment rates in black and other minority groups), he pardoned a black boxer, Jack Johnson — who was convicted for travelling with a white girlfriend across state lines and he has been a friend of Tiger woods and played golf with him and even given him a presidential award. He certainly has been insensitive and politically incorrect on racial matters at times, but there is evidence that he is not a racist too. This article is not NPOV on this matter as these evidences are not sourced and summarised in the article. I long wanted to say something but figured anything positive or neutral about Trump tends to get battled out of the article and saw it as a waste of time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no compelling reason to credit Trump's economic policies for low unemployment rates He didn't flip a magic switch to make it happen. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact that someone doesn't always ski does not prove they are not a skier. Likewise the fact that someone doesn't always act in a racist manner does not prove they are not a racist. Imo. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"Some of my best friends are skiers." SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Then and now. -- Scjessey (talk)

In keeping with WP:NPOV I think we should be giving balance to the two sides of the story on Trump's alleged racism. I think a fair point is being made by Kbruen and Literaturegeek. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That is the opposite of what WP:NPOV says. The policy explicitly days we must not create equal balance. If only I had a dime for every user who never read NPOV and thought it was about equal balance. What NPOV actually says is that we should dispassionately present a factual overview as can be established by sources. Jeppiz (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It's amazing how often people misunderstand WP:NPOV. "Giving balance to the two sides of the story" would be akin to Trump's "there are very fine people on both sides." There aren't really "two sides" anyway. Unless there's a different version of Trump on the other side of the looking glass. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I find for instance "Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald comes to the president’s defense in a new Wall Street Journal op-ed [...] Mr. Trump rarely uses racial categories in his speech or his tweets," argues Mac Donald.[7] So it seems not all think Trump is racist. Wouldn't we want to represent opinions that assert that Trump is not racist in a section with the heading of Racial views? Bus stop (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

According to what I understand from WP:NPOV, Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. WP:NPOV indeed tells us to Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.. I would argue, however, that this doesn't mean only not promoting views as 50/50 when they aren't, but also making sure to include opposite views with mentions like despite 9 out of 10 people thinking X, there are some people that are thinking Y. After such an issue has been brought up, non inclusion is a willing act of dismissing a certain point of view, making it seem like all people, 10 out of 10, are thinking X, which is against attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. At least that's how I see WP:NPOV. Kbruen (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to add that, considering Trump's character (he loves drama and sparks it on purpose; he enjoys how the news is constantly talking about him, even if the talk is negative mostly), in my personal opinion, accounts from people who personally know Trump (and especially people of colour) are more important than what some columnist from NYT or pundit from MSNBC thinks. Again, in my personal point of view and considering what people who actually know Trump say, it's likely that he isn't a racist but says racist stuff on purpose every now and then just to fuel the media. Kbruen (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbruen: - I would like to see you providing reliable sources that Trump is not a racist. Pardoning a black person does not count unless the source says that that act shows that Trump is not a racist. starship.paint (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

An excess of OR-like reasoning, passing as editorial judgment, continues to be a problem on this page. Our most experienced editors do it regularly. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbruen: "...considering what people who actually know Trump say, it's likely that he isn't a racist but says racist stuff on purpose every now and then just to fuel the media." Even if that were true, that is not fundamentally different from racism. It would be indirect racism, but racism just the same. The key thing to understand here is that reliable sources overwhelmingly regard Trump as a racist, which is actually a pretty remarkable thing given how cautious the media is at putting negative labels on people. While it is true there are some sources that say Trump is not (or may not) be a racist, these are few and far between - basically outliers. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Should we not take into account that, recently, the reliable sources are anything but cautious on putting negative labels on people on the conservative side? And also that most of the media, the reliable sources have a political view against Trump, hence having a conflict of interest when calling him a racist? It is quite undeniable that most of the media (the notable exception in case of TV being Fox) is against Trump. Kbruen (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No. It is called "mainstream media" for a reason. As soon as we start picking and choosing which reliable sources should have prominence based on our perception of their political leanings, rather than treating the entire body of the media as a whole, we may as well start burning books. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: In that case, I'm sure there is reliable media around that says Trump is not a racist, at least enough to warrant a Hey, jsyk, not everybody says Trump is racist in there. Kbruen (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbruen: - then you find it, and you present it here. Okay? starship.paint (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbruen: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. A tiny percentage of reliable sources say that Trump isn't racist, or is at least less racist than everyone else says he is. That's a fringe opinion not shared by a preponderance of reliable sources. When something is an outlier like that, it is absolutely not "balance" or "neutral" to mention it. In fact, it is the opposite. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbruen: Thanks for that fine piece on conspiracy theories. Reliable sources do not become less reliable because they have a negative view of Trump, as you seem to believe. Most reliable sources have pretty negative views of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin as well, it doesn't mean we search out fringe sources to provide "balance" No, I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler. I'm making a point about false equivalence. Jeppiz (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Jeppiz, your comment only makes sense if you were addressing an editor who wanted to remove all commentary suggesting Trump is racist in some form or have the content as 50/50. Yes, reliable sources can be biased so we as wikipedians strive summarise differing viewpoints, within policy and guidelines. Also, nobody is advocating using fringe sources, e.g., a blog or other poor quality source. We currently have 6 paragraphs denouncing Trump as inherently racist, yes most sources criticise him for saying racist things or even being a racist but if reliable sources can be located that indicate a differing point of view it would be worth while adding a short paragraph per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV etc for balance.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbruen: - if you can't accept the usage of reliable sources, you are not suited for editing Wikipedia, much less this topic. starship.paint (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

What about if a well-respected political commentator such as Candace Owens expressed the opinion that Trump was not racist—would that warrant inclusion in our "Racial views" section? Bus stop (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Candace Owens is about as far from "well-respected political commentator" as one could possibly get. She is frequently describe as an openly racist demagogue. How on earth would her saying that Trump isn't a racist be of any relevance? Jeppiz (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

So, it is your opinion that she has so little standing that her opinion doesn't matter? Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: - you've got to be joking me. Candice Owens, who said that the main problem with Hitler was that he wanted to "globalize". [8] Globalism is what I don't want … If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well — OK, fine. The problem is ... he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German ... I don’t really have an issue with nationalism. I really don’t. It's important to retain your country's identity" Candice Owens, [9][10] who was once a frequent figure on Alex Jones' far-right conspiracy theory website Infowars ??? starship.paint (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint—you don't have to ping me. I have the computer implanted in my head. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. starship.paint (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Thank you for the unfounded assumption. Sources become less reliable when they claim some things that are false. For example, CNN promotes themselves as a neutral news agency, though they published a significant number of stories that were wrong to certain degrees, all the mistakes were in such ways that they affect (R), conservatives or Trump, and then, after the misleading stories had their effect, they issue a correction that barely anybody notices and that's it. No such mistakes were made that affected the other side of the political spectrum. Based on this, I would argue that even mainstream, reliable sources can be wrong and should be treated as such. Kbruen (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbruen: - humans aren't perfect, everyone makes mistakes. Of course mainstream media can be wrong. We can determine that on a case-by-case basis for each incident. But, if you're arguing that CNN is fundamentally biased to the point of being unreliable, then I point you to WP:RSN, go ahead and get CNN declared as an unreliable source. You are going to get absolutely nowhere by effectively declaring here that the mainstream media is unreliable on Trump. starship.paint (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Larry Elder writes "Democrats used to say the same kinds of things that Trump is saying right now, but now that Trump is saying them, he’s harsh, he’s unfair, he’s xenophobic, if not racist".[11] Isn't Larry Elder implying that Trump is not racist? Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

He is saying, at a minimum, that much of the criticism of Trump being racist is unfair, false, exaggerated, hypocritical etc. I don’t think he is saying Trump doesn’t and never has had a racist bone or thought at any point in his life though. This is the type of viewpoint that must be included to achieve NPOV.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

If our article is going to rag on Trump for his policies at the southern border and its racist implications, as it does at this time, it might represent an element of balance to quote Larry Elder saying that the "Democrats used to say the same kinds of things that Trump is saying right now, but now that Trump is saying them, he’s harsh, he’s unfair, he’s xenophobic, if not racist". I am suggesting that our article should not be presenting Trump's alleged racism as a one-sided story. It is nuanced. The answer is dependent on whose opinion one solicits. Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the point. We're not saying he invented racism or is the only racist in the World. O3000 (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not difficult to understand, seriously.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That really doesn't explain the point, does it? O3000 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. Please don't respond to repeated soapbox and denial of NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

• User:Kbruen - agree the section does need work, with your mentions of WP:DUE proportion and should have some views other than NYT, but think the article approach should stick to BLP and events or facts rather than an approach of serving up opposing opinion QUOTEFARMs or trivial items. (Repeating current issues is BALANCE but not in a good way.) I suggest improving the section would do better to prune/fix existing material where it has things like duplication, cites that actually do not actually say the item is racism, content only loosely related (e.g. birtherism), or content with small weight (the opinion of the who-on-earth-is Political Science Quarterly). User:Literaturegeek items seem only loosely related, so might be better at Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump#Defenses_of_Donald_Trump -- but his/her 'insensitive and not politically correct (to all) is not racist' sounds like it could be a promising addition to the end of the "He has repeatedly denied he is a racist" line. The initial paragraph might also be better to add a closing line or two in the section speaking about polling to include other key poll results -- that viewing him as 'racist' has a strong Partisan divide in polls, and that a small majority view believes charges of 'racism' are politically motivated. I'll jus do some minor tweaks to the section, if you want content it will take cites of note. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  Reverted, because it removed an important fact. I've fixed the language so that "shithole countries" can be used without repeating "countries" in the sentence. It's amazing to me to think you could get away with removing a key sentence without first seeking consensus here. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Height listed is incorrect

Under "Health and lifestyle" wiki states although at 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m) and 243 lb this is incorrect, and must be edited to 6'2" 1.8796 meters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.201.152.70 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a source for this data. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

To my surprise, [12] [13] [14]. It looks as if the height is keeping pace with the weight in recent years. I would say that the 6'3", like the "co-authored books" thing, is an extraordinary claim from non-independent sources and should be treated accordingly. It's been about 30 months since we discussed these "medical reports" and I suspect that some of the editors who previously took them at face value may have revised their opinions. So it's at least worth hearing what others thing should be done about IP's request. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The taller height may be his from an earlier age. People do shrink as they age. Has he made any recent claims?--MONGO (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

So to stay ahead of the curve, maybe 6'1" for shrinkage? He was at Obama's 6'2" 3 years ago. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I just read that Obama was 6'1". Unless we get some official updated height from a medical exam tabloid speculations should be avoided. Apparently based on his advertised weight, the difference of one inch extra in height (6'3" instead of 6'2") makes him overweight instead of obese.--MONGO (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

So ignoring any shrinkage in office that would put Trump's true height at 6'1", not adjusted for elevator shoes or hair mass. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Are we really discussing this? Duh — JFG ^talk 09:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

An argument can be made about removing this completely. Trump obviously lies about his height and weight out of vanity, and he has instructed people to lie on his behalf. For any other president this would be scandalous, but there are at least 10 new things more scandalous than this every week. Trump clearly wants to downplay the "obese" moniker, and speaking as someone who has been obese for 32 years I can totally understand, but given the weight (pun intended) of all the other shocking Trump-related things, I no longer regard this as notable. You could even call it fat shaming. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I removed height and weight. There is no independent RS sourcing for this and it's trivia. The physician's conclusion that he's "clinically obese" is sufficient. SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that seems reasonable given that the source specifically mentions his obesity. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Aside: I am a gnat's cock over 6ft and I am a lot taller than Arnold Schwarzenegger. I almost didn't recognise him in the lift in the hotel because he was like 5'9" or so, I thought it was a lookalike, as Arnie is always stated to be over 6ft. Guy (help!) 15:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  How refreshing to learn that a Wikipedian once shared a lift with a barbarian! — JFG ^talk 16:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he's not been back. Guy (help!) 16:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Self-hating

The list of attributes at the foot of the main article would be enhanced by the inclusion of self-hatred. Like his father before him, Donald Trump used until recent years to maintain that his grandfather Frederick Trump had been a Swedish immigrant from Karlstad rather than a German draft-dodger from Kallstadt. This misinformation persisted in his autobiography "The Art of the Deal." This behavior has been attributed by commentators to anti-German sentiment in the United States starting from the time of the two world wars.

Something similar might account for the otherwise incongruous combination of striking military postures and denigrating war veterans while himself having avoided compulsory military service. The reams of published comment on DT must include references to these aspects of his behavior. NRPanikker (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• @NRPanikker: - the burden is on you to provide enough WP:RS to demonstrate that material is WP:DUE for inclusion. starship.paint (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

And even if the OP provides sources, we should be mindful of BLP constraints and the recent RfC consensus to not discuss Trump's mental health in this article. — JFG ^talk 12:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The self-hate bit is Original Research. Ergo, nix. We need not get into BLP or additional OR associating "self hate" with "mental health". SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Self-hatred is not a mental illness, rather a part of one's make-up that affects how they think, react and behave in certain circumstances. Regarding BLP, is Trump even a person at present? King James VI said, "Subject and King are clean different things." NRPanikker (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe self-hatred isn't technically a mental illness, but it certainly isn't a psychologically healthy behavior. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Batteries question for those unheard from

JFG and Mandruss suggested I do this as another thread limited to the bit asking about the batteries phrase recently added at the end of the Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle section, so:

For the three-quarters who did not ask for this “batteries” phrase, are you opposed to that ?

Answer (or other thought) below please. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Specifically pinging the ones who did not previously speak to it:

• User:Mgasparin, User:Atsme, User:Bus stop, User:Jack Upland, User:Tataral, User:Scjessey Markbassett (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• User:Emir of Wikipedia, User:Gamingforfun365, User:Rreagan007, User:LM2000, User:Cosmic Sans, User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Bodding. Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• User:MaximumIdeas, User:Literaturegeek, User:Eyer. Markbassett (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• This is unintelligible. SPECIFICO talk 05:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO Well, this is looking for what folks think about the “battery” closing to the added sentences, from those who had not voiced anything about it in the last discussion. You voiced in favor so weren’t pinged, but circa three quarters of the editors were inputting about other things and said nothing about “batteries” either way. I wanted to find out what (if anything) that bulk of folks thought, and in a roundabout way JFG/Mandruss directed me to do a new separate thread. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• I personally don't care, the sentence is fine either way to me. I !voted before the other options were added, and I didn't see the need to !vote again after options C and D were added. @Markbassett: I think we are all tired of this discussion, can we please move on? Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Look, I'm happy to discuss whether the "batteries" quote is worth including, but I can't support your process of selective pinging, still referring to the previous RfC. Just ask a straight question for/against that quote, and don't ping anyone. — JFG ^talk 06:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  I agree. He can't unping, but he could at least close his own thread as withdrawn. Or somebody else could close it as another process misstep, and I would support that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  Umm, what? I note that directed pings were what was used before in a generic ask which got limited response... this seems a bit similar. Markbassett (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think Option A: "Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy" represents the best choice. It says the most with the fewest words. References to golf are superfluous. The subject of "exercise" is significant enough to stand on its own. We are telling the reader Trump's view on exercise. (I had voted differently in the past. I am changing my position on this.) Bus stop (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This has been discussed so many times in (seemingly) the last 5 minutes that I no longer care. I continue to think "Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy." is the best of all the choices, and I am unlikely to change my mind unless/until something new from reliable sources becomes available. And there's no need to ping me to announce a new thread, because I read them all. Reserve pings for drawing attention to responses in older discussions, or when threading is confusing, or when an editor has apparently been inactive in a topic area for a bit longer than normal. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please start over, link to the article text and previous discussions you reference and state the question so that it can be understood by one and all. Personally, I have two immediate reactions: 1. This article has too many undue synthy tidbits that suggest Trump is corrupt, a racist, a narcissist, a privileged nitwit etc. etc. -- these are each on their face undue and unencyclopedic. 2. There are increasing numbers of RS (mostly not day-to-day media) references that address the same issues and events in Trump's life from a broader perspective and provide reasoned, evidence-based, and DUE assessments of the same issues. I don't recall supporting the "batteries" bit but if I did, I retract pending a complete statement of the issue. 3. The editing environment here seems not to be consensus-based but, even worse than ever, enabling vetos of article improvements by even a single editor. If this is how the page is to work, then the 24-hour BRD experiment should be abandoned. I think it should first have been given a fair try. How can we attract new editors to these articles amid legalistic quibbling over nonsense? SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: When has an article improvement been vetoed by a single editor? Diffs please. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO acknowledge your retracting support for “batteries”. You had supported the paragraph including it at 21:07, 22 August, though that post seemed somewhat contradictory as it also strongly opposed part of the paragraph. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• I still think Option A: "Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy" is the best choice. As I said before it gets right to it and it's what he's said. The bit about the body having limited energy sounds a bit OR in that it sounds misleading to me. What I think he probably meant was, only so much time and energy in a 24 hour period, and he wants to use it for something he believes is more productive. Bodding (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• The more I think about it, the more it seems to fit better in an article about human longevity and the benefits of healthy exercise. We don't have to add everything Trump says, especially if it's criticism considering his age and seemingly boundless energy. How does inclusion serve our readers? I'm of the mind that it comes across more as pointless criticism, making it quite unencyclopedic. Also keep in mind that when his term is over, there will probably be a lot of whittling down as the political motivations wane and more historians and academics start publishing facts and actual results which will replace all the speculation. RECENTISM and allegations of Russian collusion come to mind. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Request to go back to semi-protection

There has been much trouble here in the past. Try asking again in 2025. Mgasparin (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I honestly see no reason why this page should be extended protected; Request to go back to semi-protection — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino245 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Absolutely not. There was a lot of trouble with new accounts vandalizing this article in the past, and given the controversial nature of the man, I see a lot of reasons as to why the vandalism will start up again the moment EC protection is removed. Also, this is not the place to request a decrease in protection. See WP:RFPP for that. Good luck with any headway on your proposal though. Mgasparin (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2019

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 last paragraph in this article is a complete lie. Please remove it 2605:E000:1219:4E8B:B9B3:ECC8:A150:A29B (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: What's the lie? That an impeachment inquiry was opened? No, that's obviously true. That Trump pushed the President of the Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden? Transcript backs that up. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Point of order. It's not a transcript. Rather it is a summary presented in a memo. The actual transcript might be even more mind boggling, for all we know. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be well sourced. WP:RS O3000 (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Presidency section is redundant with Presidency article. Saves 100Kb space to merge redundant material.

The Trump biography is presently templated for length issues. When his Presidency article was templated last January nine months ago, I was able to save 100KB in that article by merging the Foreign Policy section there with the Trump Foreign Policy article on this link [15]. This worked last January on the Presidency article, and now a similar redundancy can save about 100Kb in the Trump biography article here since the "Presidency section" here is redundant with the Presidency article for Trump. It is possible to save the entire section space here by linking to the Presidency article and then merging a significantly shortened version of that section on Presidency here into the "Political career" section directly above it here as a subsection. That saves nearly 100Kb by not duplicating redundant material in this Trump Biography article which is already covered in detail in the Trump Presidency article. CodexJustin (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A similar proposal failed to reach consensus in July, see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 101#Transclude Presidency?. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment and link. I have placed this as a 1RR edit to show that the space saving is over 100Kb. CodexJustin (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

There's no way we can remove a bunch of information about his presidency from this article. His presidency is the most important thing there is to report about him. If we want to trim material that is redundant with other articles, trim the business or family sections. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN Yes, that's a good point. There's a lot there that could be trimmed while still keeping in mind that this article is his biography. Bodding (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• About the length maintenance tag I think it should be removed from the top of the article. Having a standard tag at the top inviting editors to remove content from this article where almost every large removal of content to reduce size will be challenged and discussed endlessly on the talk page seems like a bad idea to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a good idea to invite editors to think of ways that this article's size can be reduced. After all, only extended confirmed editors can make any changes to the article. I encourage efforts by CodexJustin and others to propose drastic reductions in size like this, by providing a summarised version of large sections which have their own articles. In the case of Trump's presidency, there are many articles about it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that some sections of this article can be reduced dramatically if spinoff articles cover the content better. But I oppose any notion of eliminating the Presidency section, which would be unprecedented in the biography of any U.S. president. I think that the Business career and Media career sections are much better candidates for this type of treatment. Take a look at George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the two other presidential biographies of the Wikipedia era. Take a look at other biographies of presidents who were already very famous at the time of their election, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower. All these articles have both robust Presidency sections and even more detailed "Presidency of . . ." spinoff articles. We should maintain that model for the Trump article, since his presidency is by far the most historically important part of his biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Trim Presidency, do not eliminate business and media. More of his life, fame, and personal events happened then and it’s not less the problem. The BLP article needs to everywhere try to be concise and to filter harder to be BLP and to things with lasting impact. The Eisenhower article manages *eight* years of Presidency and his prior considerably more historic life without the help of ~1000 side articles, this just needs the hard effort of pruning story-du-jour and trivia. Keep the maintenance tag up until it’s no longer an oversized article, if ever. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with Markbassett, and I'd be particularly eager to see her proposals for some cuts that substitute long-term perspective for lists of media dust-ups. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Cullen328, Markbassett, and Onetwothreeip: There seems to be a view among the editors responding above that trying the same approach I did on the Presidency section might work better if applied to either the Business section or the Media section instead. Let me know if I can assist on either of these. When I reduced the Presidency section here using a 150-word length limit, there appeared to be concerns that this was too short. Maybe a 400-word limit or 700-word limit on summaries would work better before the more lengthy remaining narratives are merged into the "sister" Trump articles. The Trump biography article is over 400Kb going on 500Kb, while the Trump Presidency article is over 300Kb going on 400Kb, both of them are much too long and have been templated for length by other editors. If there is any consensus for a word length that is practical, then it might be possible to make progress on reducing the size of these very long Wikipedia articles. The redundancy between the presidency section here in the Trump biography article and the Trump Presidency article indicates a very high degree of duplication of material. Let me know if such a word-length limit approach is useful, while merging the more lengthy remaining narratives into the "sister" Trump articles. CodexJustin (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  Taking a quick look at the Presidency section, I see inconsistent levels of detail and lots of OR as to what's significant enough to be in this biography. For example, why doesn't the "early" section mention hiring and firing Mike Flynn as the first of his many DNI? The entire larger Presidency sections could be consolidated and should be written in summary style, rather than the itemized or play-by-play that's there now. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  Something like this, maybe? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've always thought that the Donald Trump article should be much smaller than it is, and cover only the most enduring aspects of his presidency. The remainder can go into the spin-off article Presidency of Donald Trump. In practice, this might be tough. Anything Trump-related is a beacon for WP:RECENTISM, and editors seem intent on covering everything in excruciating levels of detail. So I'm sure there would be disagreement on what to keep... but you're 100% right that there is an extreme level of redundancy here. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You, Mandruss, and SPECIFICO: There appears to be some agreement that it might be possible to shorten the article by removing large redundant sections as Mandruss has done in his version of the Presidency section above by using a 700 word length rule for the section here this. The result looks very promising. The same approach can by applied to the Business section as well using a similar 700 word rule for condensing the redundant material with redirects to the Main page for this material. Together this looks like it would be 150Kb-160Kb reduction in the Trump biography article here if both the Presidency section and the Business section follow the 700 word rule. Possibly Mandruss can give us a link to see what a 700 word version of the Business section would look like, similar to what he did for the Presidency section above. This looks like a large saving in redundant space which would alleviate the length issues with the current Biography article here which is still over 400Kb in length, and which is too long. The 160Kb reduction plan here if adopted would result in a 240Kb Trump biography article which seems worthwhile to do. CodexJustin (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: That was not a 700 word length rule, or any word length rule. Editors at this article (and likely editors at all articles) don't like length rules, and insist that they are unnecessary, even while oblivious to the fact that nothing else has worked despite being given ample chance to work. Ideology often trumps empirical observation, sadly.

Rather, that was the sandboxing of the proposal that failed, which I linked above. If you read the proposal, you will see that it's the transcluded lead of the Presidency article. Thus, I didn't write it, and I'm not particularly good at that kind of thing, so I wouldn't be able to do the same for a different section unless there a sub-article whose lead could be transcluded.

And it's Mandruss, not Madruss. Nice to meet you. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: My own 150-word version of the abridgement is here [16], and your transcluded 750 word version of the Presidency article lede section represents an adequate approach even if it might need further adaptations. As an analogy, for discussion purposes, word-length limits are used all the time for controlling Plot section length in film articles throughout Wikipedia, which target the 400-700 word length, and this works fairly well. The difference is that the Trump biography article needs to try to control 100Kb redundant section lengths of material with very large overlaps in repeated and redundant materials. The word limit approach, whether 400-words, 700-words, or 1000-word length, seems like it might be worth some discussion since the Trump Biography article is currently over 400Kb in size and going on 500Kb in size which is too long. Can this word-length limit option be looked at as a possible approach to control redundant and duplicated material on Wikipedia? CodexJustin (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Can this word-length option be looked at as a possible approach to control redundant and duplicated material on Wikipedia? You pinged me, so I assume the question is for me. It can as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not the one you need to convince, and I doubt you'll convince them. The anti-rule mind-set – the mantra, "If it's too long, just discuss it and it will get shorter. If it doesn't, repeat. Forever." – is hard to overcome. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you stating that my 150-word summary version [17] is unusable or that it should be lengthened to 400-words, or 700-words? CodexJustin (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Mental health, again

I am concerned about consistency within the project here. If we are going to present the opinions of third-party medical professionals who have not personally examined Joe Biden at Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign#Verbal gaffes and age concerns, then how can we exclude that same kind of commentary made with reference to Donald Trump? bd2412 T 04:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Could be because there have been no Republican debates and Trump has not spent anywhere near as much time campaigning as Biden. That will change as the election approaches and attention moves to the two way race. TFD (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with BD2412. I was shocked to see the Joe Biden biography, with paragraph after paragraph detailing every verbal lapse and suggesting they show mental deterioration with age. Here at this article we have allowed NOTHING of that sort to appear in the article. I have done a little trimming of the excess commentary, but in my opinion that section needs a serious haircut if not entire elimination. Let's take this up at that article's talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• User:BD2412 - false and wrong - Nope, not this again. First, false: there are no opinions of third-party medical professionals there, it has a medical professional who has examined him and did surgery on him and does NOT cast aspersions, then a lot of observed gaffes and some UNDUE quotefarm bits by non-medical individuals. Also false: "we" did not do this -- it was an editor or two THERE in the last few weeks, apparently following the lead of recent sniping at him. Consider gaffe mentions comparable to the conveying here umpteen snipes about Trump saying something false or misleading - saying that gaffes occurred, like saying here that false statements occurred seems accepted ... but to go into speculations of mental illness is not reputable. Second, wrong: that some article somewhere did this a few weeks ago is not a good reason for us to be stupid also, it is an example of why we should not go there. The mental health junk against Trump were here (or in the POVfork quasi-attack page) for a long time before they got deleted, you'll just have to accept that removing them from Biden may also take a bit of time. Really, you should be posting THERE to tell them it is a bad idea and to get it cut out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  "Consider gaffe mentions comparable to the conveying here umpteen snipes about Trump saying something false or misleading." Please do not compare the verbal gaffes and faux pas of a candidate to the outright lies told by a president. The lies are orders of magnitude more concerning. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Joe Biden’s article pages should not contain any speculative armchair diagnoses, per WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE etc. Content that contains armchair “diagnoses” should be discussed over there and ultimately removed as a matter of urgency. No sense discussing it on this page. If there are no diagnoses suggested in his article pages and instead just gaffes made then that might not be an issue, as Markbassett suggests, but again that discussion should be held on Joe Bidens pages. I have not read the relevant Biden wiki articles so I’ve no hard opinion on the course of action needed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Is this the Joe Biden page? Oh no, the Internet has stopped working!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 10:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Kinda have to agree. The standards at one article should not inform the standards of another. That being said, editors at this article bend over backwards to show the subject in a favorable light, which apparently is not happening at the Biden article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether it's a favorable or unfavorable light; the reality is that "armchair" mental health diagnoses are considered unreliable and usually unethical by the medical community, therefore making it a WP:FRINGE theory that has no place in a BLP. If that's what they're doing at the Joe Biden article then perhaps it should be removed for the exact same reasons why it was removed here. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

"Armchair" diagnoses are NOT considered "fringe" at all. They are bound to be less accurate than a proper assessment, but in the absence of a serious assessment of the president, armchair diagnoses are what we are reduced to. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Even if you're right, we established a consensus that these opinions are fringe and are not to be included in this article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 21:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

We did not decided it was "fringe" at all. We just decided it was inappropriate. Diagnoses by professionals, even if done from a distance, are simply less reliable. "Fringe" is a term used to describe things outside the mainstream, such as anti-vaxxers and peddlers of pseudoscience. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The closer of the last RfC disagrees, and the close has not been formally challenged. My view is that one should either formally challenge a close or accept it. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we should put armchair diagnoses in, in fact, I agreed with May His Shadow Fall Upon You's OTHERSTUFF comment in my first response. I'm just contending this ludicrous view that they are somehow are a "fringe" view. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you read that close? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and I disagree with it's assertion that there was a consensus that such diagnoses were considered "fringe". While the term was mentioned, it did not come from those I would term "mainstream editors" of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Which brings us back to formally challenge [successfully] or accept. That includes all details of the close, not just the main include/omit aspect. In my view. You can't emphatically state that We did not decide it was "fringe" at all. when the close clearly says we did. But this side issue about "fringe" seems beside the point and I continue only for accuracy of the record. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The closer got that bit about "fringe" wrong. Any competent reading of the RfC can see that. I'm not interested in challenging the close of the RfC because I was satisfied with the RESULT of the close, even if I wasn't satisfied with the LANGUAGE of the close. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• We just had a formal Rfc on the issue for this article so I suggest the same at the Biden article where I will also oppose armchair opinions.--MONGO (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Philanthropist in the first sentence

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.

This should be changed to:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman, television personality, and philanthropist.

if you need a source let me know Fefil14 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Fefil14, yeah you're going to need something to support "philanthropist". The sources I'm aware of suggest he is not one.[18][19] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah...we definitely need a ref that says he is/was a "philanthropist". Aside from him promising to give his Presidential salary away I have not heard of anything else that fits the narrative of philanthropy.--MONGO (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

To pass DUE for the first sentence in the article, they will need considerably more than one source. That might suffice for below the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I was being somewhat facetious...obviously.--MONGO (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Definitely has been giving away his Presidential salary, and previously did do philanthropy and his foundation also gave-- but seems to me not enough article content on that to satisfy WP:LEAD. And generally, philanthropist just doesn't seem like that big a part of his life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, that’s because it wasn’t a part of his life at all, in any reasonable sense. You linked a list of grants from the Trump Foundation, but Mark, a little truth please: none of that was his money. He hadn’t actually contributed any money to it for over a decade, and the organisation was closed down and the remaining assets liquidated because it was essentially being used as a personal slush fund for the Trump family and the Trump Organization. Dozens of examples, and details of the investigation by the Attorney General of New York, the IRS, et cetera can be found on the main article page. But since it was a charity where the money came from other donors, it’s not Trump’s money.

Assuming good faith here, I’m a little confused as to whether you didn’t know any of this, or were just unaware of where the money came from. Either way, it’s totally inaccurate to say that’s an example of Trump being philanthropic. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus I have to discount the above as just a bit of opinionating. 'Not at all' doesn't even agree with 'not in 10 years'. In practical WP terms he gave away money, time, endorsements, and we have cites saying "philanthropist" predating the recent ideological posturing. The more recent may criticise that he was playing to cameras, or that his foundation gave in suspect ways, but that also confirms "gave". It doesn't seem enough in article to suit WP:LEAD, but philanthropy did occur and was noted in press. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It’s hardly ideological posturing, and certainly not an opinion. Mark, it’s literally backed by dozens and dozens of reliable sources. It’s why the organization was dissolved, and People v. Trump was initiated. You can see the various statemens on the affair from investigative journalists, the IRS section chief, the AG, and so on in the article.

As far as you disagreeing with the “ten year” remark, it’s not an opinion. It’s just factual. The section on *this* article on the Foundation quite literally says he hadn’t made a contribution since 2008, in the first paragraph. And if you’re going to make claims like that, back it up with the reliable sources you say exist. I’ve never seen a reliable source claim he was a philanthropist, even before his presidential run. It certainly doesn’t appear in this article. It would be inappropriate for the lead because it’s not even in the body of the article itself. The whole preceding conversation was editors agreeing about how there are no “cites” supporting that characterization, so honestly, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus - again, your phrase ‘not at all’ obviously doesn’t agree with your own ‘gave 10 years ago’ ... and now you seem confirming that he gave as I said. If you have never seen sources that say Trump as a philanthropist, well you should have already seen them when you Googled for yourself but go ahead try it now. Meanwhile the question here was only re LEAD worthy, not about the fact he has given, and “certainly doesn’t appear in this article” is enough to determine that per WP:LEAD. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Damn, can't find my LOL emoji. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• User:Drmies Can’t have that. How about 😂 ? Or File Big smile.png | thumb ? Or braces Unicode ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Henry II moment

WP:NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump recently echoed King Henry II's cry of "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" by accusing his whistleblowers of treason and ruminating on how traitors were treated differently in the past. Given his estrangement from his own government's covert services, this sounds like a broad hint to his friends in the Five Families of New York and is worthy of inclusion in the section on "Incitement to Violence." NRPanikker (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Possibly. Can you show us your choice of 2-3 strong sources that support that analysis.- MrX 🖋 12:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC) We could wait until he or she is shot: there should be plenty of comment then. NRPanikker (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk page headers WP:NPOV

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.

---

Unfortunately, an editor posted a section header on this page that used ‘’’Russiagate’’’ to refer to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. While there’s a certain currency of these ha-ha “-gate” terms in popular culture, cable TV and other informal venues, such terminology is not universally applied to controversies, investigations, and affairs of state. Regardless of any editor’s personal POV that this is a neutral way to describe such events, we should not assume that users and editors who come here will think it is an NPOV and serious way to refer to such events. So as a matter of logic alone, we will always be better off using straightforward, descriptive language that is understood by everyone, not just aficionados of some flip media argot. We should reflect dominant mainstream usage.

The heading was reverted with the bogus rationale, WP:TPO and the empty claim that Russiagate is NPOV. Note that TPO says,

Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc.

Let’s all try to share this talk page in a neutral way, knowing that editors come here with diverse backgrounds and knowledge. There is never a good reason to use a POV or ambiguous header when an NPOV one is readily available, see WP:TALKNEW. Having discussed this on the talk page, I or another editor may or may not replace the header again. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with your interpretation. Merriam-Webster -gate: "usually political scandal often involving the concealment of wrongdoing". Whether the heading is changed will depend largely on how many editors are inclined to accommodate facile objections just because there are more important things to discuss. I'm not one of them. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Check the usage in mainstream RS discussions. It's <1% usage. About like babies-in-cages-gate, let-them-eat-cake-gate, and Joe McCarthy-gate. Flip and undue. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia PAGs. Per WP:DUE, DUE applies only to mainspace. Per WP:MAINSPACE article talk pages are not part of mainspace. QED. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll agree with SPECIFICO here - it *is* used as a right-wing term of snark, and I'll add that casual terms wouldn't make it clear what the topic is -- a more meaningful name would be preferred. (Urban dictionary - RUSSIAGATE: Avoiding taking responsibility for losing at something you thought was a sure thing by blaming Russia (of all things) while simultaneously fabricating a distraction from your own corruption, incompetence and criminality.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Urban dictionary is crowd sourced and has no place here. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggests we use it as a reference, but it does suggest that millions of readers will take it as tongue in cheek, snarky, loaded, POV, and non-encyclopedic. We just can't assume readers will not be misled by tricky language. When there's simple straightforward language available, why would we want to mislead the large or small number of readers who would get the idea we're minimizing or mocking some aspect of the Russian interference? SPECIFICO talk 00:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

What the urbandictionary entry suggests to me is that one person out of 7 billion feels that way about Russiagate. It is political soapboxing, nothing more. Besides, it's political soapboxing about the controversy, not the term often used for the controversy. That's a non-argument if I've ever seen one. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

If the section dealt with addressing an international smear campaign against Clinton in 2016, "Russian interference" might be more appropriate. But it's about the subsequent domestic scandal, regarding Trump's alleged complicity/collusion/conspiracy in the Clinton-Russia thing. Connected in causality, but whole new chapter with Mueller replacing Putin as the central antagonist and Trump taking Clinton's spot under fire. Three years later, the White House has been restaffed and Democrats run the lower House. Not a single Russian interfered in the SCI, the key plot point of this talk section, so dredging up the past to title it is unduly nostalgic. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

If what section dealt with...? The lead summarizes article content. The article has a section entitled "Russian interference". The fact that you got the impression from this POV talk page header that the lead should only include the investigation and lack of smoking gun proof is exactly the problem with that header. Clearly, OP meant to be asking whether we should be summarizing the article content in the neutrally-worded article section. By tagging it with a derisive tongue-in-cheek header, he risked giving editors the wrong impression, as I believe occurred in your case and the case of the editor 人族 below. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

International smear campaign against Hillary?!? To what pray tell are you referring? The big scandals I recall are the Clinton Foundation - charitable earnings down 90% or so since losing political significance, the email scandal - investigations still ongoing, and the Uranium One scandal - passing control of 20% of U.S. uranium plus overseas interests to Russia. Was there another scandal that was purely a smear job? 人族 (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@人族: - pushing stuff like Uranium One is either fringe or dangerously close to it. [20] - Clinton was not the sole approver of the deal. Also approvers were the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. starship.paint (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

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