Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 78

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

→

Archive 85

New RS report as to Trump wealth

As I have often stated here, the sourcing on Trump's legendary wealth is based largely on that -- legend. It is quite as plausible that all of what appears to be his personal wealth is instead a lifestyle funded by his investors in order to sustain the branding of Trump as a successful businessperson. This story in today's Washington Post helps us reconsider the weight currently given to reports that, in part, make undue inferences concerning wealth that is not directly audited or disclosed [1] SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Already added by Drbogdan --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Should have waited before adding that to the article. This is breaking news and has not been vetted, most just hearsay. I wanted to revert the edit but I don't want to start some type of hostility. Sovietmessiah (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Added the word "allegedly" to the text with a cite from a CNN article using the word. All this news is slanted against the President and until is proven should not be written as absolute truth. Sovietmessiah (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the world "is slanted against the President", and this IS a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I even cited an article from CNN so liberals can't refute that this is mere allegation. This encyclopedic article should be neutral. Personally, allegations shouldn't even be listed until they are proven in my opinion, but I'd rather avoid an edit war. Sovietmessiah (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You mean an alleged edit war. SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

My point was that what some Americans might see as neutral would probably be seen as pro-Trump by most of the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Allegedly seems a little superfluous when it is already qualified as "ex-Forbes reporter said" which makes it pretty clear where it is coming from. "Trump allegedly did x" is fine, as the CNN source; so is "an ex-forbes reported said x" as other sources say, but both combined is awkward and unnecessary IMO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree - adding the word "allegedly" (and relevant CNN ref) to the article text (and the other related refs) seems indicated to me as well - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I hope my edit did not offend you. It's all well intended! :) Sovietmessiah (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I would rather see the "net worth" thingy removed completely. Is it really a defining characteristic of the man, other than the fact his claims of his wealth outstrip reality? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If anyone has the energy, it would be worth reevaluating everything in this article to take stock of how much of its content is parroting Mr. Trump's public relations narratives that have been crafted to generate media reports that have no independent verification. And now that he's in office, we see widespread RS reports that the people surrounding him (and recently departed) have felt obliged to promote false narrative in order to avoid termination or obstruction of their official duties. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a defining characteristic. Before the Presidency, President Trump was most recognizable for being a successful businessman and host of The Apprentice, attributed to him because of his wealth. Sovietmessiah (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it was because of the appearance of wealth that he created. In fact, RS tell us he was broke which is why he reinvented himself into a pop-parody of a rich mogul that was sold to a certain number of credulous folks. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is weighted with far too much OR and speculation. NYTimes article in 2015 - apparently, there is some confusion here about "wealth" vs "worth". Stick to the facts, please. A person with $300 million is not exactly poor. Forbes recently published (4/21/2018) his real time net worth at $3.1 B so I really don't know what all the chatter is about. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding - I checked the cited sources - opinion pieces - I also listened to the recording...it was not what was represented. The edit is challenged as poorly sourced, and irrelevant. Why should we care what a Forbes ex-writer says, and how is that information encyclopedic? It is unsubstantiated fodder. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme You wrote "I also listened to the recording...it was not what was represented.". Could you please elaborate?- MrX 🖋 21:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

MrX, I actually listened to 2 recordings, each being a short clip. Listen to the very beginning of the 1st recording when Greenberg asks for person's name...what do you notice? Listen closely right up to the part where the person talks about consolidating the assets. The audio has been edited. Greenberg also wrote in the article that "...Barron told me, he [Trump] should be called a billionaire." That's not mentioned in either of the recordings. I also question why he waited 36 years to "unwind the elaborate farce Trump had enacted". I don't know about you, by my editorial judgment is waving a big 🚩. You also have to consider the methodology of the Forbes 400 list, and compare it to others in that same time frame, such as Bloomberg. Even with all that aside, what benefit does inclusion serve to our readers? It's certainly not the kind of scholarly sourced information that belongs in an encyclopedia; rather, it's one person's allegation after 36 years of not noticing anything unusual during the original phone calls. Whose competency does that speak to? Trump made the Forbes 400, so if that one phone call is all Greenberg and the Forbes editors needed for the listing, then maybe SPECIFICO is right about the Forbes' estimates being garbage. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, the Forbes estimates are garbage. This has been hashed over many times. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that Atsme is back to removing any negative content by spuriously citing WP:UNDUE. Also, the edit summary is false - it's not an opinion piece (doesn't matter if you make that claim twice) but a piece by an investigative journalist. And calling it "poorly soured" is a joke, right?

So is Atsme just going to consistently veto any changes to the article per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

VM: Read the alert at the top of this page then carefully reconsider your comment.

• Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

James J. Lambden (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It has received third party coverage so whether it is an opinion piece or not is irrelevant with regards to its inclusion. The question is to the exact wording and making sure that is due. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I think DUE could use some discussion. But, the sourcing appears strong. O3000 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The sourcing is questionable at best, the article is based on an allegation about an event that took place in the 1980s, and it smells just like a hit piece, which is great for baitclick but WP is an encyclopedia. To begin, the WaPo piece is a Perspective, defined by WaPo as Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences; i.e., opinion. The 2nd cited source is nothing more than circular reporting, links back to the WaPo piece. The 3rd cited source is another opinion piece they call analysis, and it too points back to the WaPo allegations, so there is no reliable investigative journalism going on in either the 2nd or 3rd cited sources. Jonathan Greenberg hasn't worked for Forbes since 2008 or thereabouts - he's a blog writer for HuffPo. I don't consider digging up prattle that dates back to the 1980s to be encyclopedic...especially when it's based on nothing more than one person's allegations. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you please not use nose-words to discuss factual text. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you call a nose with no body? (answer's on my TP) ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• We can cite opinion pieces as opinion (that is, with inline citations describing them as such and saying who said it), provided it also passes WP:DUE. The bar is high when discussing a high-profile topic like this, definitely, but in this case there are numerous secondary sources that establish that this opinion was noteworthy and had significant impact, so it's worth at least a few sentences worth of discussion in the article. You can say that you feel this piece is dumb and groundless and just an attack if you want, but given that numerous reliable sources have covered it as significant and noteworthy, they're what we have to go with, not your opinion on it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• It’s on audio tape using an alias he’s known to have used in other like situations. The way I look at it is that the entire concept of talking about Trump’s net worth is sketchy at best. He makes various claims with enormous discrepancies within weeks and once said his claims are based on his feelings about his worth at the time. Forbes really has no info about his possible liabilities. Even their annual discussion provides disclaimers. He hasn’t released tax returns. We can’t just blindly accept a Forbes’ annual ranking based on a few major holdings without a bit of disclaiming text of our own. Now, I’m not saying this particular revelation requires a section of its own. But, coming from an analyst that was involved at Forbes with Trump’s first entry into a Forbes’ list, I think it looks DUE and adds perspective to the reported number. O3000 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree for the following reasons:

1. The recordings are clearly edited, do not corroborate what is written in the article, there are no time stamps, no way to prove identity, or context.
2. It has been 36 years for this so-called revelation to be made public.
3. The sources are not RS for this inclusion - I explained that above.
4. It is UNDUE, and clearly not encyclopedic based on the way the information was gathered and assimilated.
5. I consider it a disservice to our readers and to our encyclopedia to include this in the article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include / restore: definitely of public interest and reliably sourced. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include / restore: yes - agreed => definitely of public interest and reliably sourced - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"The sourcing is questionable at best" - what exactly is questionable here? That it's reported in three different sources? That it's in a "Analysis" section which is NOT "opinion"? This is utterly spurious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

VM, I have already explained my position above. The primary source was the WaPo opinion piece (based on a 36 yr. delayed revelation that resulted in allegations supported only by 36 yo edited & unverifiable audio recordings), plus one of two sources that is basically circular reporting; it refers readers back to the WaPo article for the full article. The 3rd source, a CNN analysis (it's still opinion "analysis") states: The specific veracity of Greenberg's allegations, though backed up by a recently discovered audio recording, will have to be sussed out, but it is notably still true that we don't know as much as you would think about the President's finances. But the sources aren't the only problem with that sentence as I've already explained. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That is NOT a "primary source". That is a SECONDARY source. And it's not your job to evaluate reliable sources - that's original research. An "analysis" is NOT an "opinion piece".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources is not OR, the first paragraph says "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

VM, perhaps the following will help refresh your memory - WP:NEWSORG states: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Your arguments are becoming more unconvincing, not less. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"X said Y", however, is something that we can cite to an opinion piece (and, in this case, we also have secondary non-opinion-pieces backing that up.) You can argue with them that you don't feel that they should have reported on that piece, but those are things you should take to letters to the editors of those publications - they pass WP:RS, it's clearly WP:DUE given the level of coverage, and, therefore, we have to go with what they say. Regarding the DUE issue, here's some additional sources: [2][3], [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. It's a big enough story to justify one sentence in the article. (Also, let me know if you feel any of those sources would be preferable to the ones we're using at the moment; most of them are clearly not opinion, at the very least.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Newsworthy doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion, and if your only argument is that it's popular in the realm of circular reporting, I'm not convinced. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Newsworthy (beyond a certain point) absolutely does make it worthy of inclusion. From WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Something, like this, that is extremely prominent relative to other news about the subject, deserves at least a sentence in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, I think we're going in circles here. We have the main arguments (the question of WP:DUE, the question of whether we can include an opinion piece with an inline cite, arguments over the quality of the sources.) By a quick nose-count of the conversation, I'm seeing ~5-7 people supporting inclusion and at most maybe 2-3 opposing it - and that is being very generous to Atsme by including anyone who has voiced any direct objections at all at any point in the discussion; nobody, that I can see, has backed his specific objections explicitly, while several people have given detailed answers. Does anyone other than Atsme want to weigh in or add another argument, or to argue that this is not a rough consensus to include for now? We can refine it and try to improve it to meet objections; or, if someone other than Atsme really objects, we can go to an WP:RFC or something, but right now I'm seeing a rough consensus to include despite Atsme's vehement objections, and discussions seem to have devolved into like five or six people actively arguing with one person, with the arguments just repeating themselves over and over. --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the exclude column myself over concerns that it would be undue to have such a significant mention from only one source. If the information is true, other reports will corroborate it soon. Per NOTNEWS there is no rush. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

But what credible source do we have as to Mr. Trump being wealthy? SPECIFICO talk 13:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This report by The Guardian (citing Forbes) lists his wealth at $3.1 billion. There's nothing more credible in the landscape that speaks to something else unfortunately. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The only useful piece of information about Trump's net worth is that it has always been substantially less than he's claimed it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What? When the Brits parrot the guano from borderline RS Forbes it becomes the gold standard over other sources? Forbes is nonsense. It's like Basesball fans spring predictions of which teams have the best shot at the playoffs. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Keeping things aligned with the political genre...it's more like the media's predictions of which candidate had the best shot at the presidency in 2016. (I'm wearing flame-retardant underwear ). ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not relying on only one source; we have, at this point, something like ten different sources, many of which corroborate the tape's existence and contents. See my post above. If that's not enough to corroborate its existence and contents, what is? --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If a person believes they're running in circles, they may need to stop cutting so many corners. Aquillion, your comment that editors are somehow "being very generous to Atsme" leaves the impression of WP:OWN, and I find it very condescending. While your input and suggestions are certainly welcome, the same way comments from all editors are welcome, I don't recall an election that placed you in charge of our discussions, so please dial it back. There are no deadlines on WP. Your comment "despite Atsme's vehement objections, mischaracterizes my position. I never "vehemently" object to anything. I may seem adamant at times, but I can be persuaded by a convincing argument. You have not presented such an argument, so kindly adjust your aggressive momentum and try a more collegial approach.

I'm glad to hear that your objections are not vehement, at least; if they're not as strong as I believed, that means we are even closer to reaching a consensus. But whether it's possible to persuade you or not, it's both unreasonable and unnecessary to convince every single editor about every single sentence. That said, though, since you say you can be convinced on this point - what would convince you? When you complained about sourcing and due weight, I produced numerous sources, several of which ([11][12][13]) report the contents of the tape as fact. Your response, as far as I can tell, was to say that I hadn't presented any convincing arguments and then decide that this was a WP:BALANCE issue instead. So... tell me what you would find convincing in this case? --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I am now of the mind that NPOV, specifically WP:BALANCE, is what applies best in this case (my underline): For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. While it may be a recent event in the news, it certainly wasn't an issue 36-years ago. It is nothing more than a one-sided allegation based on edited recordings by an ex-employee of Forbes who now writes a blog for HuffPo. It obviously didn't stop Trump from being included in Forbes or Bloomberg, so at this point in time, what difference does it make? I mean the irony is off the charts. Media is now attempting to discredit the wealth of a person they have, for decades, portrayed as an extremely wealthy person. It is not only disingenuous, it punches all kinds of holes in the argument for inclusion. Oh, look - RS say Trump is a multimillionaire...no, a billionaire...and now that he's president, despite their consistently wrong predictions during the campaign, they're saying nah, he's not that rich. *lol* And while we're on the subject of worth, what exactly is that allegation worth to the quality and credibility of our encyclopedia? Our readers will not miss that sentence if it isn't included, and even if it is included, our readers will either choose to believe it or not; some simply won't care. I doubt that a large number will actually get past the lede anyway. Keep in mind, Trump hasn't even completed 1½ of his term, so there's going to be more material added to the article, and it's highly likely that a lot of the unneccessary gossipy stuff will be removed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

you don't get it if its anti trump no matter how idiotic it is it gets in. עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have Trump's net worth in the article as soon as he releases his tax returns and the mainstream media is in a position to credibly verify his claims. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I hope we don't have remove net worth from everyone who hasn't released their taxes, because that'd be thousands. OTOH if tax return is a Trump-specific requirement that's an even bigger problem... 31.171.155.106 (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If you look at most of those at the top of Forbes’ rich guys list, their money is in stock in publically held corporations and is public information. We don’t see their tax returns – and we don’t need to in order to understand their wealth. The problem we and Forbes have with Trump is that his companies are all private. Without his tax returns, there’s a lot of guess work. Frankly, that would still be true with his returns. We have to make do with what we have. In my mind, that means using the Forbes’ number with appropriate disclaimers, which I believe would include the statement from the Forbes analyst about being fooled into adding him into the list in the first place. Or, just say unknown. O3000 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure but wealth is assets minus debt. So their public assets are public but their private debt is... private meaning most cases are best guesses. 31.171.155.106 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, the Kochs don’t need debt. We know how they made their money. It’s public information by law. Trump has called himself the “King of debt” as his money came from large, risky investments with borrowed funds. His finances are clearly more murky. That’s not a criticism. It’s just how it is. O3000 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not just the issue of debt vs. equity, although that's part of the uncertainty in such estimates. It's that Trump's business is to manage assets owned (directly or via pooled funds) by others (e.g. according to his son, Russian others). Trump's enterprise earns a management fee but does not own the assets. It's as if we said that some American baseball manager hit 200 home runs last year when that was actually his team total and he didn't even go to the plate. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I produced ten reasonably high-quality, high-profile reliable sources covering this. If people were pushing to create an entire paragraph, I could understand your WP:BALANCE objection, but for something that has seen overwhelming, sustained news coverage, I think it's a bit silly to suggest that a single sentence on a tape that received heavy coverage is unbalanced or WP:UNDUE. Just for comparison to things already in the article, compare to the "professional wrestling" section, for instance; numerous things in the article have received far less coverage in reliable sources than this. EDIT: Here's some additional sources. [14][15][16]. Again, note that these ones unambiguously report the tape's contents as fact (and the last one provides extensive context to show why it's important.) I'm not sure what else people want given that we only need to establish due weight for a single sentence on a topic that has received extensive coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

it's one source just because others reported it it's still based on that one recording by one reporter who cant prove that whoever was on the call actually lied. עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No, what the sentence says is "the reporter said this". We have something like fifteen sources for that fact. If we were stating the reporter's claims as fact, we would have fewer (although not just one, since some of the sources reported it as factual.) Part of the reason we rely on WP:SECONDARY sources in a situation like this is because we trust anything that falls under WP:RS to do proper fact-checking and to give us proper context; when a reliable source says "X said Y" without any significant disclaimers, we assume that they've found that statement to be at least minimally credible to the point where we can report that it was said. Similarly, if we had fewer sources, your speculation that the reporter may have been mistaken would carry more weight - but we have ~fifteen reliable sources, none of whom treat that prospect seriously, which gives us a pretty clear view of how we should cover this here. --Aquillion (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because people are jealous of Trumps wealth or dislike the fact that is via a private company and not a public company doesn't mean that we should WP:CENSOR it. Sources have claimed his wealth is what they claim it is, even if you state that it just goes back to Forbes we need to remember that multiple sources have reported on it and therefore it is WP:DUE. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting censoring any claims about his wealth (or lack thereof.) We have to cover all claims made about it in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources; and this tape is obviously prominent enough now to support a single sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

An editor literally wrote I'd be happy to have Trump's net worth in the article as soon as he releases his tax returns above. We should not be waiting for tax returns but the reliable sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess I should've made it more obvious I was being sarcastic. The larger point I was trying to make was that it is very difficult to determine Trump's exact net worth, particularly because he intentionally hides some of the details. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh there is no doubt about that, but it doesn't mean we remove all mention of his wealth until it is fully explained. Rather we work with what we have. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. That's what we're trying to do with this addition, though, isn't it? --Aquillion (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I am kind of late the party, but I had hoped to clarify the situations just so I understand. Is all this basically to see if we should reinstate this material possibly with other/additional sources? PackMecEng (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. --Aquillion (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn’t really matter how many sources say that this report was issued. Only one agency has done the editorial legwork in reporting the original story. That does not add to the credibility. Until the report can be corroborated independently by additional sources it will be undue. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to be clear on what the disagreement is so I know what I have to find to resolve it. What you want is a source confirming the existence and content of the tape in its own words, rather than relying on someone else's description of it, correct? And if I can link you to one or two additional reliable sources that unambiguously say "the tape exists, these events around it happened, and it means XYZ" in their own words, then that would be sufficient to overcome your objections so we could devote a sentence to the tape in the article? Basically, I want to know what you mean by "editorial legwork" and what a source that would answer your objections would look like. --Aquillion (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we please try to be more compliant with WP:RECENTISM? May I also suggest a refresher read of the essay WP:Relevance? There appears to be an attempt to conflate Trump the person (this BLP) with the Trump Organization, which happens to be a LLC so it appears even that article is incorrect - see Bloomberg. Are we reporting on Trump's personal wealth or his business wealth; i.e. the LLC. If it's business, it belongs in the LLC, with very limited mention here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Do not include - It's just not looking like a major part of his life with major effect. A recentism POV/interpretation opinion piece that someone thinks he's overblown ? Exactly what wording is proposed here ? Across a 70-year life what was written earlier this week just doesn't have a lot of duration to have any effect anyway, and since its the umpteenth complaint about him I struggle to see it as being much more than 'this weeks complaint'. Markbassett (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include Aquillion's version – While I would argue the Forbes piece alone is UNDUE the press seems to have picked this up. I have seen articles in The Week and The New Yorker. Unless I have misread the credibility of the Forbes' reporter I think Aquillion's text in this edit is warranted. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue I would have with that is it does not say when this happened. He came out in april 2018 but this supposedly happened in 80's making them less relevant to today. PackMecEng (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

But we do include his 80s net worth; so it is relevant. Also, relevancy to today doesn't determine WEIGHT, RS coverage does Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Remove Forbes It's not RS for this wealth figure and we don't have the net worth of other public figures, e.g. Pres Bush, Clinton, Gov Spitzer, et al. Then we don't need to include why it's not RS SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Would that not basically remove the whole section? PackMecEng (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Good question. As it stands now, the section is more about Forbes and more on-topic for the Forbes article than for this one. I think a section could be well-sourced to discuss Trump's claims of wealth in all their varieties, contexts, and applications, and so forth. Some of this content is already in the article. We should not do anything to suggest the Forbes estimates are fact and they should not appear in the infobox. SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Do not include - it's a 36 yr old unsubstantiated allegation dependent upon edited audio tapes produced by an ex-staff member of Forbes who now authors a blog for HuffPo. It adds -0- value to the article, it is noncompliant with NPOV WP:BALANCE, and while it makes good baitclick fodder, it is not encyclopedic, regardless of how many news sources have published it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Do not include first off even if it was Trump on the tape who says he was lying about his net worth and since this was 36 years ago how does that make it that affect his net worth now. עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Same as I said to PackMecEng; we do include his net worth in the 1980s in the article, and thus it is relevant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include per my comments above, as long as his forbes 400 listing in the 1980s is included, this is very relevant. This text is also extremely relevant since we speak of his net worth at 1982 and his inclusion: In our first-ever list, in 1982, we included him at $100 million, but Trump was actually worth roughly $5 million' — a paltry sum by the standards of his super-monied peers — as a spate of government reports and books showed only much later.. In fact one of other RS we use here this nytimes piece (fron 2005) shows our wealth section needs reworking to show how much doubt there is about the various estimates given Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC) More RS are there [17]. The wealth section really needs a rewrite. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include - as before => definitely of public interest and reliably sourced - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include – I'm now convinced this is DUE. Trump has made a huge deal about his wealth for decades. The fact that he has lobbied Forbes to increase their estimates is not new. The fact that his estimates change radically from time to time and differ radically from estimates by Forbes and Bloomberg are well known. It’s known that numerous of his business ventures failed, even a multi-level marketing company that examined your urine and sold vitamins.[18]. As none of his companies are public, and no one has seen his tax returns, we can’t discuss his net worth without some context, of which there is much in reliable sources. And we should mention his net worth as he has spent so much time talking about it himself. We can add as much inline-attribution or "alleges" as we think prudent. O3000 (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

See my comment above. It appears we're going to need an RfC. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant to discussion Atsme📞📧 20:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apologies if I’m wrong, but didn’t you just suggest on another page that an RfC that wasn’t going your way be deleted and a new discussion and survey be created? And now here, you are suggesting that a survey, not going in your favor, be ended and an RfC be started? O3000 (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Provide the diff, please. It doesn't sound right. Atsme📞📧 04:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC) [19] made nine days after the RfC was started as opposed to my suggestion made 90 minutes after RfC start before there were any responses. O3000 (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC) You are misrepresenting what I said, O3000 - read the diff. We were talking about a malformed RfC that was not even started - there was a local survey in process. There is nothing inappropriate about asking for wider community involvement when an issue fails local consensus. In fact, it is encouraged, especially when it involves highly disputed areas. Atsme📞📧 15:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC) In no way am I misrepresenting anything. O3000 (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC) O3000 you've gone from an offering an apology if you were wrong to a flat-out denial after you were proven wrong. This is the second time you've misrepresented something I've said. Please stop. Perhaps you've forgotten that it was Rja13ww33 who attempted to initiate the RfC soon after the survey began, and a few iVotes had been cast. Drmies was first to point out the issues when the RfC was proposed, then he self-reverted, saying (→‎RfC on Lede Revision Change: never mind, I see it now: page was jumping up and down). Then you came along right behind Drmies and again pointed out correctly that the RfC was malformed. I agreed with you, which in retrospect may have been a mistake in light of what you're doing now. I think this discussion should probably to be hatted. It is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and you should not have attempted to discredit me to begin with...boomerang. Atsme📞📧 16:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC) The RfC is registered and has about a dozen !votes. I suggested that it be deleted on procedural grounds 90 minutes after it was started. It wasn't deleted. So be it. You said you agreed with me nine days later, after more !votes going against your position. The closer will have to decide if it was a legitimate RfC. In no way did I misrepresent anything. O3000 (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC) You have it backwards, O3000. I said nine days later into the survey: "Delete [the malformed RfC], and let's see what local consensus brings". The RfC was not active yet, so how can you equate what I said into "but didn’t you just suggest on another page that an RfC that wasn’t going your way be deleted and a new discussion and survey be created?"?? The survey is what was already underway, not the RfC. I agreed with you to delete the malformed RfC, and said to let the survey run its course, which is nothing like what you represented to be what I said. Jiminy Cricket. What a time sink this has been. We have to stop meeting like this. Atsme📞📧 17:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC) The RfC points to the !votes and has done so for 13 days without anyone deleting the statement in the RfC to cast RfC !votes in the survey section, despite my objection immediately after the RfC was initiated. And you keep leaving out that you waited nine days to agree with me, after more !votes. We may disagree. But, in no way did I misrepresent anything. O3000 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include. This is very interesting and well sourced information (I have learned about it some time ago and was surprised). Actually, it explains a lot; this is one of most important facts to know about this person. My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

proposed addition to "Early life and education"

Hello, I would like to have the sentence below, with footnotes, added to the end of the first paragraph of "Early life and education," following footnote 14. (There were more articles on this and McIntosh was interviewed for a few Frontline shows on Trump but I thought the footnotes below were adequate. Was not going to add McIntosh's name but since he is listed on Wiki, did, according to policy. FYI: ultimately McIntosh thought Trump was likable and he did watch out for him, but thought that was not Wiki appropriate to add since it was a judgement.)

"Trump was asked to keep an eye on an underclassman, Sandy McIntosh, son of a business acquaintance of Trump's father, who has been interviewed extensively about how the culture of hazing at the New York Military Academy formed Trump's behavior."

Thank you.Ogmany (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. PBS & Salon are good sources, and the text makes no value judgements. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of the sentence? I'm having trouble understanding why it should be included. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I am wondering the same. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is not significant enough for inclusion. Sovietmessiah (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Does not look to me like a major part or major effect in his life that should get into a BLP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel this is necessary in a space-constrained article such as this one. It is effectively promoting Mr. McIntosh. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The sentence currently here doesn't even say exactly how the culture of hazing affected his behaviour. Oppose inclusion per above. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I have strengthened the sentence and also the footnotes supporting it: it is well worth including as it speaks to President Trump's leadership style and its roots. School is a major formative experience, particularly a military academy that you have been sent to as a very young teenager because your parents could not control you. I am not including Sandy Mcintosh's name because the point is not about him, (and had hesitated to do so anyway as per my first inquiry) but his direct experience with DJT and the culture at the NYMilitary Academy, where leadership was taught by old school military men, and how it clearly effected and informed DJT's leadership style, and he is now President. Also relevant in light of James Comey's promotion of his book, which he states is a book primarily about leadership and how decisions are reached. There has been a lot of attention to how Roy Cohn's mentoring of Trump effected his leadership style and the way he deals with opponents, and the roots of Trump learning leadership, which favors the style he perfected under Cohn's tutelage, is what he learned from the hazing culture at the NY Military Academy. It was deemed important enough to get coverage in major media outlets and is a formative part of DJT's leadership education. (And maybe speaks to why he like surrounding himself with Generals.) If I did not manage to do it this time, would appreciate any help in getting this point across. (It got coverage in other major media outlets but I do not have access behind their paywalls unless I go to the library, classmates in the various articles have confirmed this version of their time there, Frontline used the interview in other shows on Trump. I could add more footnotes but want to be brief but get across a very relevant part of Trumps leadership education.)

"Trump was asked to keep an eye on an underclassman, son of a business acquaintance of Trump's father at the Academy, which "could be a brutal place where grown men who were veterans of the real military ruled with threats and force," who has discussed how the culture of hazing formed Trump's behavior. Trump’s first year, "was hellish" and he was reprimanded, but eventually assumed a leadership position at the school and "lied about his athletic exploits, escaped accountability and did everything for show."" Ogmany (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't think this sentence improves the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

As good as the sources may be, sounds like armchair psychology to me. O3000 (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

-- Mr Ernie (talk), Emir of Wikipedia (talk), Sovietmessiah (talk), power~enwiki (π, ν) There are an unprecedented number of generals working in the White House. Trump's only military background, his school, and history of his formative years is important presidential leadership background. How about this, shorter, more direct, and Markbassett, (talk) Galobtter (pingó mió) it explains the culture where Trump came of age and the roots of his leadership style, with a direct quote from Trump on the NYMA's impact on his leadership style:

The Academy "could be a brutal place where grown men who were veterans of the real military ruled with threats and force. Trump's first year, "was hellish" and he was reprimanded, but eventually assumed a leadership position at the school and "lied about his athletic exploits, escaped accountability and did everything for show." The culture of hazing formed Trump's behavior, where "You had to learn how to survive, essentially, with some of these guys. I learned discipline — how to dish it out and otherwise.” (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Still no. If there's an effort to collaboratively write a book-length biography of Mr. Trump, it would be useful there. In this article, the fact that he attended the school is sufficient, there's no need for further detail. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't even get through the first sentence...

Extended content

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. without seeing the bias in this article. Consider the opening sentence... "Trump was born and raised in the New York City borough of Queens, and earned an economics degree from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania." Trump RECEIVED a degree. Whether or not he EARNED it is someone's opinion. Abkedefghi (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC) If you are looking for bias you had better keep reading, because "earning a degree" is a pretty common expression. Many/most of our US President articles mention "earning" a degree. I started working backwards from Trump - the first article I found that didn't mention earning a degree was Jimmy Carter. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Surely WP:WEASEL still applies. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also relevant here. The fact that garbage may or may not exist in other articles does not justify it here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC) I am fairly confident that neither of those links apply here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC) As soon as you tell us about the articles on other Presidents, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. WP:WEASEL applies to the cliched use of "earned". HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Most people would say that's a bit of a stretch :) The current wording may or may not be optimal, but the original poster's claim of bias is unfounded. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC) "Most people" is weaselly language too. The original posters concern was about the cliched and possibly inaccurate use of the word "earned". I too would prefer more encyclopaedic language. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Tweaked to be received. I don't WEASEL doesn't really apply here, as it is not a vague attribution etc (something else from MOS:LABEL may apply, but still I don't think earned is overall that much of a problem) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC) "Earned" is NPOV to suggest otherwise is petty. I oppose "received." – Lionel(talk) 02:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Sheesh. Let's see what other bias we can find. Trump grew up in Jamaica, Queens... Should be "was raised", that he grew up is a matter of opinion. ...attended the Kew-Forest School... Got attendance records? Should be "was enrolled at". While at Wharton, he worked at the family business... Sez who? Should be "was employed at". That's just one little section, I could go on and on. In my opinion, (1) both words are acceptable under NPOV, but (2) people cry bias far too often with no justification, and (3) other editors should discourage that, not accommodate it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Psst..Drmies, can we collapse the above? Atsme📞📧 22:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Withdraw

Can someone link the Iran withdraw in the lead to United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action? Thanks. FlowerRoad (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done.[20] ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobel Prize nomination

In January 2018, South Korean president Moon Jae-in praised Trump's tough stance toward the North, stating that Trump deserved "big" credit for his efforts in facilitating talks between North and South Korea[597] and has endorsed him for the Nobel Peace Prize - The part about the Nobel Peace Prize has been added and reverted [21], so let's discuss it. My take is that "being nominated for a Nobel Prize" is virtually meaningless (virtually everyone prominent in global affairs is nominated [22]), and doubly so in this case as it would be based on a peace deal that hasn't even happened yet. So it shouldn't be included, particularly in this article where space is at a premium. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice try. The New York Times of the gold standard of the leftwing, so since the source can't be impeached the strategy is to employ "UNDUE"? North Korea is the most prominent topic of Trump's foreign policy coverage. And with the South Korean president endorsing the Nobel it is most certainly meaningful and "due."– Lionel^(talk) 05:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The committee that awards that prize does not discuss nominations, and there has been speculation about many people being nominated over the decades. This should be mentioned if and when Trump (or any other person) actually wins the prize. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not a Nobel nomination. Until there is a nomination it's an inconsequential sound bite and WP:UNDUE. Lionelt may note that violating WP:AGF never strengthens one's case. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

What we want to avoid is a similar situation like what happened here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - As Cullen said, it seems any nomination wouldn't be public information. Therefore we can only wait until there is an award. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm new to Trump and this whole DS thing. While I hate to curtail all of the enlightening discourse, can I fire up a RFC right now or is there some kind of waiting period? – Lionel^(talk) 06:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing formal, but we would generally wait at least several days to see if a consensus develops. For something like this, a local consensus should be sufficient in my opinion, but I don't run the place. This has nothing to do with the ArbCom restrictions or DS. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the meaningless endorsement being added to the article. Per WP:WEIGHT, I will oppose any such addition unless Trump actually wins the award. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not only would this endorsement be meaningless if genuine, it's not even a real endorsement:

  Mr Moon made the comment in response to a suggestion that he receive the [Nobel Peace Prize] by the widow of late South Korean president Kim Dae-jung, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000 after a summit with then North Korean leader Kim Jong Il...Mr Moon responded to the suggestion of Nobel glory by saying, “President Trump can take the Nobel prize. The only thing we need is peace,” according to the South’s presidential office.

• In other words, Moon was basically saying, "I don't need it, let him have it." That is NOT an endorsement, so it's even MORE meaningless. --Calton | Talk 13:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:10YT WP:NOTNEWS Not meaningful at this point. If we did publish stuff like this, more interesting would be: [23]. Not suggesting it be added either. O3000 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:10YT and WP:NOTNEWS. As I heard on NPR yesterday during the story discussing this topic, foreign leaders have learned that the quickest way to Trump's good graces is flattery. That's all that Moon's comment was. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Did NPR say whether he's being considered for an Order of Saint Catherine? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as utterly meaningless, also per above & NOTNEWS. –Davey2010^Talk 18:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - while I certainly endorse global peace, and recognize who the primary players are in that negotiation, it's all still speculation at this point. Let's not put the cart in front of the horse. Let it incubate. 🐣 ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Sovietmessiah (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This comes up all the time. We NEVER mention Nobel Prize nominations. They mean absolutely nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• UNDUE at this time - if he was awarded one it would be mentioned in the BLP, but meanwhile it's not got enough buzz to be worth consideration. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment we now have an "actual" nomination [24], as mentioned above this changes absolutely nothing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket! I hope that nom doesn't jinx anything. I'm feeling like a sitting hen who was just shooed off her nest by Don Tyson. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

18 out of 236 Republican members of the House (Gohmert didn’t sign - was he indisposed?) - overwhelming endorsement, biggest ever. The sinkhole that appears to be swallowing the North Korean nuclear test site might have been a better candidate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not news after a few days of aging. And definitely not encyclopedic meat & potatoes for the ages. Greg L (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nominations aren’t news, at least not for the 50-year waiting period until the non-winners’ names are published, and definitely not encyclopedic. Quoting the Nobel Prize organization: To be nominated for a Nobel Prize is not an official endorsement or extended honour to imply affiliation with the Prize or its related institutions. Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize require no invitation and can be submitted from all corners of the world to the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The broad eligibility of nominators means thousands of people – with no affiliation to the Nobel Committee – can put forward a name and motivate their opinion of why they consider a candidate worthy. This is what differs the selection process for the Nobel Peace Prize from many other prizes where awarding committees or academies select all the nominees as well as the winner. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Totally meaningless and not even public information. "A nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize may be submitted by any person who meets the nomination criteria. A letter of invitation to submit is not required. The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later." And "Qualified Nominators" include: "university professors, professors emeriti and associate professors of history, social sciences, law, philosophy, theology, and religion etc etc etc." We're talking about tens if not hundreds of thousands of qualified nominators here. See [25]. --Tataral (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Blanking of part of Talk page history

by editor Richwales with the comment WP:DOX: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=840922337. I can't figure out why or exactly what happened. My edits among the blanked ones don't contain any personal information on anyone; I haven't checked on anyone else's. The actual edits are still on the Talk page, it's just not possible to call them up in the history. Can someone undo whatever was done? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• As an oversighter, Richwales hid the revisions from when the apparently WP:DOX information was added till it was removed from public view. That doesn't mean your or other people's edits had personal information, just that that section of the page history had personal information somewhere in the page and thus had to be hidden. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Weird, it was all experienced editors. What happened? SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No idea, indeed strange.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned the Propecia, right? SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Collective punishment on Wikipedia? Or reverse Clockwork Orange, stapling my eyes shut, to make me unsee something I may have seen (I sure don't remember seeing any personal info)? Couldn't the editor just have blanked the edit in question? Just grousing to myself. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I would think the link to WP:DOX (now given three times) would be enough to explain why the content was removed. Being an experienced editor doesn't mean you can't (either accidentally or intentionally) reveal someone's personal information in a comment. As mentioned in the first reply, the other edits were suppressed because they also contained the removed content, and all revisions between when the content was added and removed need to be suppressed. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Except you have no factual basis for that. We all read the posts. None of us saw anything that would have required this. The only one who knows is the Admin who did the deed. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. Maybe I'm just dumber than the average bear. And what part of "just grousing to myself" didn't you understand? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we got some type of clue so we don't inadvertently do anything wrong. All that is left is a chilling sense of dread. I assume the offending editor has been informed of their error. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Chill out, folks. When something has been oversighted, it is hidden from EVERYONE. Even admins can't see oversighted material (unlike revdel material which we can see). What oversight amounts to is a very high level of "classified". Since the reason given was DOX, presumably there was some kind of personal information revealed. Since the editing around that time was in the Doc Bornstein section it's possible the material related to him, but we can't tell because it is gone, gone, gone. It might have been something about one of the other people posting on the board. It might have been about something completely unrelated. Whatever it was, it apparently stayed on the board for several dozen subsequent edits before an oversighter found it and decided it could not stay on Wikipedia. That kind of judgment is what we entrust oversighters with and it's why they get the big bucks. The intermediate edits were removed from view because even though the edits were innocent, the view of the page from that date and time contained the problem material. I think you can all rest assured it was not something you did - or need to worry about. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If nobody did it why is it undid? SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone made a comment in which they referred, in passing, to another editor's activity on another site. That other editor expressed concern, off-wiki, that connecting him to said other site (a connection which he himself had never made here on Wikipedia) could lead to disclosure here of his real-life identity. Per our outing/doxing policy (WP:DOX) and our suppression/oversight policy (WP:OVER), I redacted the mentioning of the other site, and I also made all the intervening snapshots in this page's revision history invisible to everyone except the approximately 50 editors currently granted the "oversight" permission (listed here).

Note that suppressing the revisions in question did not remove other people's comments made on this page — all it did was hide some of the page's revision history. It was essential to do this in order to keep the outing/doxing material truly hidden. Unfortunately, there is no way to edit a past revision (snapshot) of a Wikipedia page; the only way to deal with a past revision which contains problematic material is to make that past revision invisible in its entirety.

This whole matter has been discussed on an e-mail list used by the aforementioned 50 "oversighters" (a group which, btw, also includes present and past members of the Arbitration Committee). By the very nature of situations like this, the details cannot be disclosed on-wiki — hence the e-mail list. Fwiw, User:Primefac, who commented earlier in this discussion thread, is an "oversighter" and is aware of the details here.

That's really all I (or any other oversighter) can say here. I am not going to name the editor who originally made the comment that triggered this kerfuffle — who, btw, has not been blocked or otherwise disciplined, since their action was almost certainly certainly not a deliberate or malicious doxing/outing attempt. Nor am I going to identify the other editor, and I'm certainly not going to name the off-wiki site where he allegedly also participates. And as a courtesy to that other editor, I would urge people not to try to deduce or reconstruct the redacted material; I can assure you that it's not relevant to any discussion here about Donald Trump (and much as it may grate on some of you, I'm afraid you're just going to have to trust me on this). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC) 23:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Richwales: I only hope someone has advised the editor who made the mistake, lest they make a similar one in the future. If necessary, it could be done by email, but I don't see the need if the user talk comment were sufficiently vague (and of course not all editors are reachable by email). We shouldn't assume the editor deduces that they were the offender, even if they are around to see the oversighting and this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I remember it now, and certainly won't "use" that information. I suspect you meant to write: "...since their action was almost certainly NOT a deliberate or malicious doxing/outing attempt." I wish that others who perform necessary revdel/oversighting would provide such explanations. Please discuss that with the others and get them to always do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

With the preceding comment, never mind, although my comment still applies in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: You're right — I accidentally omitted a crucial "not". I've fixed this. Thanks for pointing it out. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm...is there really a reason editors should be afraid of what happened? Sorry, I'm late to the party. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

In one word, "no". I honestly don't think there's any more that can be added to this conversation. If someone wants to discuss it further, you're welcome to email me. Primefac (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Faith and opportunity initiative

This edit by Winkelvi (talk · contribs) violates ArbCom's ruling on political articles on the basis that it reverts material that has been challenged. That edit has previously been notified of the ArbCom ruling and the associated discretionary sanctions. No effort has been made by that user to engage in talk page discussion, so I have created this thread on Winkelvi's behalf. My view is that the material should be excluded on the basis of notability, for the reasons documented in the edit summary given by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk · contribs). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree, and anything here on this broad article needs more than one news source or so and a snopes fact check that pretty much explains how it isn't important on WEIGHT reasons Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The material is probably worth Including on the basis the section in question is slim for an important and controversial aspect of his administration. May also warrant a new sub-head dealing with his administrations position on religion in general, either way, agree that better secondary sources could be added.Cypresscross (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    • If it is supposedly "important and controversial" then the sources should be there; if you present them then material can be added. Things should be added just because we feel they are important. Per NPOV we go by WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Doing a basic Google search brought up quite a few stories on this in several news sources, I chose the one with the most recent date. And since when does Wikipedia consider Snopes a reliable source? One more question: Does no one apply WP:AGF anymore? While it would seem the answer is 'no', let's not forget that the policy still exists. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm able to find a couple of sources but nothing indicating particular important/more than any of the numerous executive orders he has signed to be in this, again, highly summary style article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It's very hard to see this passing DUE WEIGHT for Trump's biography, a story rich with events far more significant that we do not even mention here. It may belong in the Presidency article. There does seem to be at least a smattering of RS coverage (not cited here) and it appears to be quite unflattering. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree this material is better-suited for Presidency of Donald Trump and/or Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2018 Q2. I've also BOLD-ly added Winklevi's exact wording to Social policy of Donald Trump. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you also boldly add some of the reporting about RS comments about what a nasty bit of fake policy this is. Also maybe something from its supporters and the benefits they expect to flow from it. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2018

Please consider adding link at "Vatican" (the only mention of such on this page, re Trump's audience with the Pope) to this article discussing details of Trump's visit to the Vatican: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/world/europe/trump-pope-vatican.html

The above article link describes in detail the visit and particulars of historic interest.

Thank you!

Cato1713 Cato1713 (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Redone using a better NYT source.[26] ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Real estate - Manhattan projects - Wollman Rink

I made some corrections, but didn't touch the last sentence. The source from April 1, 1987, doesn't say that he operated the rink for a year, it merely mentions the first winter's profits. I haven't found any source that says how long he operated the rink/restaurant/concessions the first time around. The agreement for the construction also awarded him the operation of rink/restaurant/concessions, with the profits to be given to charity and public works (he did, but the sources only mention the first winter). Trump wanted a 10-year contract, the city offered 4. Did he accept 4? He (or rather Wollman Rink Operations LLC) won a contract in 2001 to operate Wollman and Lasker rinks from November 1, 2001, to April 30, 2012, and I read in one of the sources that he lost out to another bidder in the Nineties but it didn't specify when. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Found it, along with a picture of the man on his Trump-branded Zamboni. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Birthplace in infobox

I have a quick question regarding the birthplace in the infobox: should we list it as "New York City, New York, U.S.", or just keep it as "New York City"? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

See #Current consensus item 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Just wanted to make sure since I don't intend to get involved in an edit war. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's perfect like it is. We all know where New york City is. Sovietmessiah (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Grammatical Error in the Intro

"Trump entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican, and defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries."

There shouldn't be the comma after the word "Republican," as the first part of that sentence is an independent clause but the second part is a subordinate clause, so putting a comma with the conjunction is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.35.209 (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC about birther claim

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.

---

Close was requested on 5 May by the prolific close requester, Cunard.[28] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Should the paragraph (or any mention) about the Obama "birther" conspiracy theory be included:

• A. where it is now, subsection Racial views in the "Public profile" section;
• B. a new subsection Birther claims in the "Public profile" section;
• C. not included in this article at all but in the Donald Trump presidential campaign when the rumor was being circulated.

Note: Please do not clutter the Survey section with lengthy comments - use the Threaded discussion section. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding another option which has already gained support from three editors. — JFG ^talk 10:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• D. Move the paragraph back to "Political career and affiliations up to 2015"

Survey on birtherism

• D C - it was a campaign conspiracy theory. Trump eventually acknowledged in a statement dated 9/15/2016 that Obama was born in the US. Politifact published the Trump campaign statement, and also showed how the rumor began in connection with the 2008 Clinton campaign regarding Clinton aide, Mark Penn, who sent then-Senator Clinton a 2007 strategy memo advising the pointing out of Obama’s "lack of American roots", but there is no evidence that ^{Penn said anything about Obama's birthplace, or that} Clinton or the 2008 campaign took Penn's advice. ^{In fact, there is nothing in 2007 strategy memo that mentions Obama's birthplace or that he was not born in the US. 22:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)} There was also a chain of emails by Clinton supporters ^{that may have started the rumor. 22:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC) The Telegraph presents more detail.22:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Atsme📞📧} 03:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC) ^{Clarification made 17:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)}
• D - it was a campaign conspiracy theory. Trump eventually acknowledged in a statement dated 9/15/2016 that Obama was born in the US. Politifact published the Trump campaign statement which linked to the 2007 strategy memo sent by Clinton aide Mark Penn to then-Senator Clinton advising the pointing out of Obama’s "lack of American roots”. There is no mention about Obama's birthplace in the memo. There is no evidence that Clinton or the 2008 campaign took Penn's advice; however, there was a chain of emails being circulated by Clinton supporters that may have started the rumor. The Telegraph published more details. ^{Corrections to more closely represent the sources and for further clarification of where the rumors began. Atsme📞📧} 22:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Since it appears that Atsme is not going to correct the misrepresentation in the above comment - "showed how the rumor began in connection with the 2008 Clinton campaign regarding Clinton aide, Mark Penn, who sent then-Senator Clinton a 2007 strategy memo advising the pointing out of Obama’s "lack of American roots" - I advise people to read the Politifact link she supplies, which shows that the Mark Penn memo did not mention or even hint at anything about Obama’s birthplace, and actually advised the campaign to emphasize Hillary’s “American-ness” but say nothing about Obama’s background. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Better yet, Melanie...The Telegraph provided a bit more detail regarding the chain emails, and the actions that followed, including the statement: ...but supporters of Hillary Clinton, now Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, are largely to blame for starting it. With regards to the 2016 Trump statement, perhaps you know what was meant by "Clinton campaign"? Does it refer to Clinton supporters, delegates, DNC staff, campaign staff, Clinton aides, or what? Sources say it was supporters of Hillary Clinton, so it's best to simply say what the sources say. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• A Birtherism was an inherently and intrinsically racist attack upon Obama at the time, this is borne out by sources I provided in the preceding section. The filer of this discussion is also pushing the fraudulent "Hillary started it!" position, a ridiculous canard that has been debunked and deflated as countless other right-wing conspiracy theories have been, from Pizzagate to Seth Rich's murder. His POV push at the birtherism article has already been reverted. Readers, note that Atsme's attempted edit over there begins with "On September 15, 2016..." for this false claim that Trump has "accepted" Obama's actual place of birth, but sources report that Donald Trump continueed to question the former president's place of birth as recently as the Fall of 2017. TheValeyard (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC) -- This user is checkuserblocked as a sockpuppet account. Alsee (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Not C. It wasn't a campaign gimmick; Trump started that nonsense in 2011 (according to our article). Drmies (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• D: Move to 'Political career and affiliations up to 2015.' The significance of the birther stuff isn't a racial connection, even if there is one; the significance is that it launched Trump's political career. As such, it belongs in a history section, not in a political views section. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• B (keep, move to new section) B or D (keep but not under the rubric of "racism)". That Trump publicly questioned Obama's country of birth—and therefore whether he was qualified under the Constitution to be a president—is noteworthy and should be covered in an encyclopedic fashion. It should not, in my opinion, be located under the rubric of Racial views any more so than the birther claims over John McCain (article link to The Washington Post) when he was running for office. Greg L (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Greg L: Given some of your other comments, it seems that you only want this material out of the "Racial views" header. Does that mean you would support option D as well as B? (Option D had not yet been formulated when you first !voted.) — JFG ^talk 01:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Yes. I've struck and revised accordingly. Thanks for pointing out the new option. Greg L (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• D: Move to 'Political career and affiliations up to 2015' which is where it was last time I read this article. His birther comments in 2011 were the most important part of his political life until he officially announced his candidacy in 2015.LM2000 (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• D: move the paragraph where it was originally – Indeed the "birther" story contributed to launching Trump on the political scene. He even acknowledged as much by saying "I believe it made me very popular". Nothing to do with racism, as Trump used similar lines of attack against white candidates John McCain born in Panama and Ted Cruz born in Canada. — JFG ^talk 10:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• A, not C per TheValeyard, and Drmies.- MrX 🖋 10:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• A: When you insist that someone is not American, you are saying they are a foreigner. An "other". Not one of "us". This was racism, and was consciously pandering to the racists in society. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

By that logic, Trump also insisted that the very white and Christian John McCain and Ted Cruz were "not one of us" foreigners, and therefore that was racist?? — JFG ^talk 11:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear the relevance of this comment. There's nothing wrong with the tag "racist" for any of these insinuations. We already know that "racist" has no rigorous definition, certainly not in ordinary language on WP. It is used just as @HiLo48: says, to point to "others". So yes, the insinuations about McCain and certainly Cruz, and maybe even Mittens' Mexican refugee dad can meaningfully be called "racist". We are not writing as anthropologists or sociologists. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Read my FULL comment. (Something fascinating about Trump fans is that they believe and claim he is smart, but won't concede he's smart enough to make the racists think he is on their side. Politics is complicated at times.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I did read your full comment, and mentioned a valid comparison using your line of reasoning. How can you ascribe racism to Obama birtherism and not to Cruz or McCain birtherism? Oh, because Obama is half-black? That sounds like a racist attitude. — JFG ^talk 11:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you truly believe Trump had no idea of the racist implications of what he was doing? HiLo48 (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that Trump probably "made the racists think he is on their side", just like Clinton probably tried to prove to black citizens that she was on their side, by claiming she carried hot sauce in her purse; anything goes to win the presidency I guess. — JFG ^talk 11:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• A, not C - Only a racist would push this kind of conspiracy bullshit, and only the worst kind of racist would actually spend substantial money funding activities to keep it in the headlines, as Trump did. For several years before there was any kind of campaign announcement, Trump was basking in the publicity of his racist birther activities. Only later, once he'd established a barbarian horde of racist deplorables, did he announce his intention to seek the presidency. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

My oh my, "barbarian deplorables" within the citizenry, isn't that a racist thing to say? — JFG ^talk 11:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"Deplorables" is a race? Did, not, know, that. - MrX 🖋 11:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

As much a race as Muslims, I suppose. — JFG ^talk 11:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Islam feelings ARE a form of racism. Folks aren't worried about Muslims they don't know are Muslims. They worry about those who look different. Who have darker skin. Who speak English differently. Who wear different clothes. Who have a different god. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not? Human is a race...so is Nascar. Pile it on! 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We should not forget Muslim support of Trump.[29][30][31][32][33] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• B or D - I've yet to see significant evidence, let alone convincing evidence, that this belongs in a section that, per its heading and its hatnote {{Main|Racial views of Donald Trump}}, is about Trump's racial views. The little actual evidence presented to date has been Atsme, in Threaded discussion, pretty much shooting down in flames many of the sources used there. If Trump cynically and shrewdly exploits American racism for political gain, that doesn't make birtherism a Trump "racial view". Only a racist would push this kind of conspiracy bullshit is simply false. Not C because this passes WEIGHT for his BLP. I will monitor developments as this RfC progresses and my !vote is changeable by evidence. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• A, not C - Whether Trump is a racist or cynically used the racism of others for his own ends is unimportant in my mind. That is, whether he himself is a racist, or it is his racial view that race-baiting is an acceptable tool; this belongs in a section on race. (And the section title can be tuned if it still bothers.) This began long before his official campaign, and was clearly an appeal to racism, as widely covered in RS. O3000 (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  This is the wrong time to offer to "tune" the heading, don't you think? We're not going to add options E, F, and G for heading changes and expect any consensus out of this. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I really see no need for tuning. O3000 (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• C - It was politics, sneaky politics, and it worked because he's president. They say if he attacks Obama it's racist, if he attacks Clinton it's misogynist. Almost as if intentionally the only person you can attacks is a white man. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC) — 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Not A, not C, give it a mention in "Racial views". Well maybe it was both his personal and his campaign's rhetoric, don't you think? wumbolo ^^^ 13:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• A and B not-C not-D C and D would bury this, which was one of Trump's flagship public narratives, aggressively promoted and not mere political or campaign goop. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• B or D. Absolutely not C; the birther stuff was a very prominent feature of his political activity and a main reason for his rise to prominence, and must be in this bio somewhere. I prefer B over D because he was a loud birther both before and after 2015. I agree with moving it out of A, because I can understand how some people would think listing it under “Racial views” implies that he was a birther for racial rather than political reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think this is a strained distinction -- political vs. racial reasons. Few racists base their feelings on any systematic set of beliefs. If one promotes or tolerates racist speech or actions, then there you are. We have no window into folks' "reasons" for or about things. Characterizing individuals on the basis of their association with a group, belief, nationality... is commonly tagged "racist" even though none of those has a simple or entirely robust definition.
• And check this out. It wasn't much of an issue until the mainstream started to worry about it. [34] SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• D as per above comments by other editors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• B then A, definitely not C – Birtherism absolutely belongs in this article, as it was central to Trump's rise as a political figure. There's enough there for it to be a stand-alone subsection, and it's a prominent enough part of his biography to merit one. But if it doesn't get its own subsection, “Racial views” makes the most sense, since it's a racist conspiracy theory, but I think there should be at least a one-sentence mention of it in the “Political career and affiliations up to 2015” section due to the role it played in his political career. -- irn (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• D. Including birtherism in "racial views" is disputable and not directly connected to race. Also, birtherism is a significant part of what brought Trump to political relevance, so placing it in his pre-2015 political career makes sense. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment A great deal of the discussion here focuses on whether Trump's 'fueling' of the birther conspiracy was indicative of Trump holding inherently racist views, or was simply opportunism on his part (essentially the A or D choice). However, most if not all of the 'racial views' section is actually "accusations of racism" - whether of personally holding racist views, or simply exploiting racism for commercial or political benefit is both unclear and largely academic in most instances in the section. I believe the section should be retitled to reflect the actual content (that Trump has been accused of racist actions and of making racially inflamatory comments, and/or endorsing racist positions), we don't know what his 'views' are, we do know how his deeds and words have been perceived. Within such a shift of section title, the material could be included in A, with text that supports that his contribution to the whole 'birther' issue was seen as fueling/pandering to racism. Though on balance, I think the content should be in D, since the significance of Trump's role is the prominence it gave to him as a populist political commentator. FWIW, I find it impossible to think of any reason why this conspiracy theory 'ran and ran', other than that Obama had a black Kenyan father and a 'funny name', and that Trump was content to 'run with it'. Pincrete (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• D: Move to 'Political career and affiliations up to 2015 - The mentions from the 2008 Clinton supporters were taken up by the right after the election -- and Trump was not prominant in this until about 2011. It is not literally racist but rather political, and ties to racism seem POV or posturing political assertions. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• D Where it belongs. That is the context in which RS describe it. (Summoned by bot) Y'all be pinging me as I am not following this and will not see any replies. Also, I do not mind in the slightest being pinged for this matter. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• A: the false claims about Obama's birthplace are absolutely racially motivated. They differ from those of Cruz being born in Canada because (a) that is true (though Trump's conclusions about Cruz's presidential ineligibility were not) and (b) they were made during a political campaign against Cruz, whereas the Obama comments were not for personal gain, carried on for 5 years and had a very racist subtext behind them. (On a related matter, there seem to be quite different details about this topic at Donald Trump, Racial views of Donald Trump and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Donald Trump—I think for due weight, we should have a paragraph or so here, a couple of paragraphs at the Obama article and the topic in full detail under the "Racial views" article.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Bilorv, with regard to your apparent statement of fact, (the false claims about Obama's birthplace are absolutely racially motivated), gosh, I wasn't aware that the weight of reliable sources state that as fact. This surprises me, since I've long held open the strong possibility that the attack on Obama, along with “Lock her up” on Hillary and Trump’s “he doesn’t have much energy,” attack on one of his white male opponents during the primary might all be politically motivated. Please cite the appropriate RSs and I’m rather confident this encyclopedia article will go with that flow. Going with the weight of the RSs: It’s what Wikipedia does. Greg L (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• D per User:DrFleischman. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• A/B and definitely not C/D. Per Drmies, TheValeyard, et al. Parabolist (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• A (first choice) or B (second choice). Obvious reasons are obvious. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• A, or, failing that, B. Most modern coverage places it in the context of his racial views. Strong oppose to C and D; C is clearly unworkable because he was advocating it long before the campaign, and D is unworkable because the extensive coverage since then means that it has remained a core part of how his racial views are seen and interpreted by reliable sources.

--Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• C Does not need to be mentioned in this article. It was a campaign gimmick. Any comments made prior weren't notable by the mainstream. This is an encyclopedia, not a court report. Every thing the man ever said is not relevant to this biography. Sovietmessiah (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we omit a lot of what he says, but racism is an issue that should never be ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• D it may have been a political gimmick, but it was a high-profile political one, largely before his campaign started. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• A (and then in order of first preference B and then D -- C completely inappropriate). (Summoned by bot) First off, I think it should be pointed out that the proposition that this fact should appear either in this article or the 2016 campaign article is a classic false choice; both policy and basic common sense dictate that discussion of this topic be included in both articles. Trump was, for more than half of Obama's presidency, one of the most vocal and devoted (and certainly most high profile) proponents of this conspiracy theory, and there are mounds of sources (primary and secondary) which regard it as the foundation stone of his efforts to reinvigorate his previously lackluster political career. And that's how we adduce what gets included on this project and where: by a WP:NEUTRAL presentation of topics, per their WP:WEIGHT in reliable sources--not our own idiosyncratic assessments of importance of the topic matter, which I am seeing a lot of above. This piece of political history is certainly more germane to this article than the campaign article, but it truly belongs in both.

Turning to the issue of where to include the material in this article, I like it where it is. No matter how you slice it, the conspiracy theory was, by its nature, a racial issue. Even if we contort ourselves to try to analyze the assertions made by Trump and other "birthers" in such a a way as to make it not at all about race (and that requires some real rationalization work), it is still about race as matter of encyclopedic coverage by virtue of how the claims were received, embraced, rejected, or interpreted at large within American society (and beyond), as covered in reliable sources. So again, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT. That leans me towards option A. Option B would be fine, though it probably raises the profile of the birther claims a little and would encourage further development of discussion of those claims here. Arguably that is appropriate, but I think its a fair trade-off to have a more constrained paragraph in the racial views section, because it provides better contextualization of the topic matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• A, not C per TheValeyard, and Drmies.Casprings (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• B. Deserves its own subsection under "Public profile" entitled Birtherism or Birther claims. Trump was still promoting the lie long after other candidates had stopped doing so, questioned both the short and the long form, etc. (big crowd pleasers at his rallies, I guess). The NYT wrote in 2011 that he was largely to blame for moving the falsehoods [] from “the nether regions of the Internet” into the mainstream political arena. I also think the title of the "Racial views" section should be changed to "Racist statements"; he habitually disparages entire groups of people as inferior and/or evil. Whether those statements reflect his views or not - who knows? He’s reality TV; he says whatever he thinks will please whatever audience he’s addressing at any given moment and never mind what he said the day before to a different audience. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• A or B definitely not C. Well documented and often discussed. Hence it merits inclusion here. A biography on Donald Trump would likely include a chapter on his Birther and other fringe claims. LK (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

RS refer to it as the birther conspiracy theories. Op-ed try to conflate it with racism, and do a bad job of it. Our own WP article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories states "A number of political commentators have characterized these various claims as a racist reaction..." The sources cited in this article either (a) do not support the claim that questioning Obama's place of birth is the result of Trump's racist view, or (b) that it's racial paranoia to support the birther claim and that the claim is tinged with racism. The ones I checked refer to it as Trump promoting the birther conspiracy theory. I checked the following cited sources:

FN269 CNN reports that Trump admits Obama was born in the US. The only mention of the word racist was in a tweet by Hillary Clinton. Trump's name was not included in that tweet, but it was implied.

FN270 ABC News - no mention of racist or racism - Trump acknowledged Obama was born in US - focus was that Trump had fueled conspiracy theories;

FN271 NYTimes - conspiracy theory - said Trump was suspicious Obama may have been born outside US - nothing about racism;

FN272 NYTimes - conspiracy theory - acknowledged Obama born in US, said Trump blamed Clinton for raising question in first place;

FN273 Fact Check - conspiracy theory - no mention of racism;

FN274 CNN - birth certificate missing - no mention of racism;

I'm not going to list all the sources - I've proven my point. I am truly disappointed in the way this whole birther has been handled. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: All FN's (footnote or citation numbers) above are as of this revision, and may have changed due to addition or removal of citations above that point in the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Atsme, there's better sourcing available than newspaper articles (though the first hits in this batch from the NYT are telling). Here's an RS that says "Many scholars believe that racial prejudice etc." Then there's Cha-Jua, Sundiata Keita (2010). "Obama, the Rise of the Hard Right, Arizona and Texas, and the Attack on Racilized Communities Studies". The Black Scholar. 40 (4): 2–6., and this: Gotanda, Neil (2011). "The Racialization of Islam in American Law". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 637: 184–95.--"The birther movement and the effort to label Obama as a Muslim should be seen as a racial campaign rather than a puzzling outlier movement of Obama-haters. The racial campaign seeks to assign Obama to the Muslim racial category and leave him open to being racially profiled as a "Muslim terrorist". There's plenty more. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Should be seen? And then the author goes on to provide his opinion for why we must see things his way? The majority rejects that notion, Drmies. See the polling results since they seem to play such an important role in Trump articles. Question - while you were searching for academic works that fit the racial narrative, did you search for the opposite narrative? The attempt to ascribe every single problem in the world to race, including terrorism, poverty, white privilege, politics, and on and on, may sell books and increase baitclick revenue but we have to ask ourselves how we measure the influence of race, and where does it end? Far more sources support the bc conspiracy theory than the racism idea because the former boosted political advantage. Our Constitutional requirement that a US president must be a "natural born citizen" has nothing to do with race. Worse yet, blaming racism (and even sexism) on everything demeans the real struggle, especially when used as a political tool. If any of it were true, President Obama would never have been elected and he certainly would not have served two terms. Also keep in mind that as of 2018, whites are still the racial majority in the US whereas blacks comprise 12% of the population. Think about that for a minute. I am hard pressed to believe his election was the result of white racists voting for him but that's what it appears some of these studies are trying to portray - I attribute most to a misunderstanding of what keeps the heart of America beating...not unlike what Richard Rorty predicted in his book, Achieving our Country (1998). I'm not denying there's widespread belief (mostly by liberal thinkers on both sides of the isle) that everything Trump does is racially motivated despite his denials. The bottomline is still the fact that the birther conspiracy theory became an issue in the election, Trump asked questions, he got the answers that satisfied his curiosity and he changed his position about the bc. I don't, and probably never will, understand why there is such an all-out attempt to conflate the qualifications for president (must be natural born) with racism. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like you've strayed into the OR thicket on this one, Atsme. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Ouch, ouch, ouch...day-em thorns! [Pause] Much better. Wait-a-minuet. This is a TP where we discuss things. Hallelujah! The OR thicket magically disappeared. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• User:Atsme, can you drop this ridiculous nonsense about "opinion"? "Should be seen" isn't an "opinion" in the way that what you seem to think is an opinion. This is someone who did some serious research. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is reliable. It has weight. Your opinion on it has--sorry--no weight at all, because you seem incapable of understanding that not all opinions are the same. Your lack of understanding of how reliable sources work is evidenced on Melanie's talk page, where I am about to comment on another rather silly comment you made. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Drmies, I am trying to understand your perspective and hope you will try to understand mine - after all, different views are what make WP what it is, and it is through these discussions that we eventually get the article right (apologies for preaching to the choir). My focus is more on layout (where the material fits best, rather than what the material says), providing all prominent views per NPOV, and getting the article right. There actually are scholars who disagree with the one you cited, including Vanderbilt professor Carol Swain, UT professor Daniel Bonevac, English professor Mark Bauerlein at Emory, and quite a few investigative reporters like Anthony Gockowski who writes for Campus Reform. While their views contradict what appears to be the prevailing view in the US according to the media and many in academia, we must not lose sight of the fact that similar thinking prevailed in the 2016 election, and look what happened. Quite frankly, we have a healthy number of editors who support the same principals and ideologies as you - and that's wonderful - but that view is contradicted by other views that are held by notable scholars, many of whom are not as vocal (for obvious reasons). Ok, so I grabbed the crappy end of the stick which forces me to wear flame-retardant underwear in an effort to maintain some sense of balance while adhering to NPOV - hey, somebody has to do it - so please be patient and at least try to understand that I approach ALL articles as I would if I was reviewing a GA or FA candidate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Opinions from professors, mostly with irrelevant degrees != scholarly - they may be scholars but that's irrelevant if they're speaking on things they're not an expert on; and their opinions shouldn't even be spoken in the same breath as peer-reviewed work by experts Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme this is not about "different views". This isn't Crossfire or a debate club. What you are presenting is, as Galobtter pointed out, a false equivalency, as if every opinion is equal. An opinion expressed on PragerU isn't worth as much as an argument presented in an academic, peer-reviewed journal article. By the same token, this has nothing to do with my political principles or ideologies, and it shouldn't have anything to do with yours. The operative principle here is RS, and coordinating considerations come from UNDUE and from well-reasoned arguments for or against certain kinds of sources. I don't cite any blogs, neither left or right. I don't pluck someone's opinion off the internet or from some ideological think-tank, and if I do that person better be relevant and have some authority to speak on the subject. Surely you saw me point to books and journal articles, not even to newspapers. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Drmies I disagree that it is "false equivalency", rather it is WP:YESPOV (my bold underline): Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. You already know what constitutes RS - and it's wonderful that you cited academic sources - but let's not forget, Trump has only been in office a little over a year. We can go back in time before he was a presidential candidate, and you'd be hard pressed to find "multiple" RS referring to him as "racist" prior to his presidential campaign; however, if you can prove me wrong (substantially), I will enter into WP servitude for an entire 2 weeks of serial comma duty. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was hoping we could avoid at this RfC, which should be a simple discussion about where in the article to put the birtherism stuff. It's unquestionable that most of the impetus behind birtherism (a preposterous attempt to claim he was somehow born in Kenya even though his parents were living and attending school in Honolulu) was racial prejudice, an attempt to de-legitimize our first black president. However, that does not mean that Trump's own motivation for promoting it was racial; it's far more likely that he did it out of political opportunism, realizing that it gave him a lot of publicity and a strong support base (and not caring why those supporters were so enthused about the idea). So let's take as a given: saying he supported birtherism is not equivalent to saying he was a racist. That leaves us with a simple question of article content: where should we put the birtherism information? --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. @Atsme: re began in connection with the 2008 Clinton campaign, and also in a chain of emails by Clinton supporters.: Please strike "in connection with the Clinton campaign." Yes, there were emails on the subject among Clinton supporters - whether or not they originated the story or were repeating an earlier claim. There is no evidence at all that the claim originated with, or was promoted by, the Clinton campaign itelf. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I clarified to more closely reflect what Politifact and The Atlantic reported. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

See my comment at my talk page about your "clarification". --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - I fixed it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Melanie - it started before the 2008 Clinton campaign, but a couple of her campaign people and a volunteer and then her supporters after she did not get the nomination made it significant. Still small compared to when the conservatives got it, and not done by Clinton herself or part of the official positions but they still were a significant part of it's growth. Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for convenience

User:JFG, just to bring the discussion about Cruz and McCain down to the discussion area instead of up in the survey: You keep asking, how could birtherism be a racist thing when there were also doubts about Cruz's and McCain's citizenship? Several differences. First, there actually were valid reasons to doubt the "natural born citizenship" of Cruz and McCain, because Cruz actually was born in another country - Canada - and McCain was born in the Canal Zone. (And before them George Romney, born in Mexico to American parents, in his day a serious presidential candidate.) Second, the citizenship objections to Cruz and McCain were mainly academic and of interest only to political junkies; they didn't ever emerge in public as serious obstacles to their candidacies, much less become persistent and passionate mass beliefs. Why the differences, when there were actually valid reasons for doubting the eligibility of Cruz and McCain, and only fantasy theories for doubting Obama? I think it's pretty obvious why Obama was treated so differently. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If Trump has commented on Cruz or McCain we can mention that too. How could birtherism be racist though if Obamas brother supports while also supporting Trump is the real question [35]. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Good question, Emir. Just curious... ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC) ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Because some Blacks can be racists just like some Jewish people can be antisemitic? Pointing out that one, or several, people of a specific race or religion support a racist meme or conspiracy theory doesn't sanitize racism any more than a racist saying he has "black friends" makes that person not racist. Dave Dial (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing racist about his brother saying this. He is Kenyan. OF COURSE he would love to be able to say that his famous half-brother was born in Kenya. So would most Kenyans I suspect. --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe SPECIFICO refers to such comments as having "strayed into the OR thicket". ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Caught me. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I acknowledge the point you're making, and clearly the birth issue about Obama resonated a lot more with the public than similar disputes about other politicians. Does that mean that Trump jumped on this bandwagon because of his purported racial views? That is the question we are debating here, and I believe that his "equal-opportunity offending" stance weighs against a racist motive in his case. Just like when he lambasts Hillary Clinton, he is accused of being a misogynist, but when he rips Jeb Bush of Mitt Romney to shreds, that is just ordinary political banter? Sorry, that's biased reasoning. — JFG ^talk 05:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

There are two possibilities:

1. Trump attacked Obama by questioning his place of birth because he is a racist/xenophobe.
2. Trump attacked Obama by questioning his place of birth because he saw an opportunity to boost his profile by appealing to racists/xenophobes.

It doesn't matter which of these are true, because both are racially-motivated attacks. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey, if only life were this simplistic, like your analysis, unfortunately it isn't, so I must disagree with your assessment of only two possibilities. --Malerooster (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Not useful O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Scjessey, if only life were this simplistic, like you, unfortunately it isn't. --Malerooster (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC) How is this a useful edit? O3000 (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC) It's a personal attack—we don't get to call other editors "simplistic" (obviously meant "simple" or "simple-minded"). I was about to remove it per WP:RPA, but now I can't since you replied. Oh well. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC) @Mandruss, no, it just shows how unhelpful it is to post original research type of POV simplistic comments or arguments, thats all. --Malerooster (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC) I didn't even see this attack on me before it became a hatting edit war, but I'm delighted with the way it backfired. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC) It wasn't an attack, it was in response to your simplistic argument.--Malerooster (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC) @Malerooster: I don't know whether you really don't get it, you are unable to admit that you made a mistake, or you simply hope to save face by having the last word. It's not complicated—the two words like you made it about the editor, not the argument. I suggest you bear in mind that everything you post is part of the permanent record and stop creating fodder for an ANI complaint. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

JFG, I actually agree with you. I don't think Trump became a birther out of personal racism. I think he did it out of political opportunism. He saw that it got him lots of publicity and attracted an eager band of supporters, so he kept doing it and escalated it. The motivation of his supporters people who believed the birther theory was mostly racial (why else would they insist on believing in such a fantasy?), but IMO Trump didn't care as long as worked for him. That is why I have supported moving this out of the "Racial views" section into (preferably) a new subsection of its own or (possibly) a "campaign" section. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, note the title of the section where this material currently is: "Racial views". That would suggest that it is specifically about Trump's own racial views - not the racial views of his supporters. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"The motivation of his supporters was mostly racial..." Uhm, MelanieN, you might want to qualify that statement because the way it reads now, you're labeling nearly half of the American population as being racially motivated. Presidential candidates are typically highly scrutinized as were Romney, Cruz & Rubio regarding their place of birth. What race is Romney? The real motivation of the people (check the sources) was to drain the swamp of crooked, career politicians...but that got put on a back burner because the focus turned to the FBI, and now there's a demand for a second counsel to investigate that whole deal. Hold on to your wallet!! Voters wanted a nonpolitician, and I seriously doubt color mattered as long as the candidate said what the heart of America wanted to hear. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Atsme, putting your whole comment in small text makes it all but unreadable for a whole lot of editors here; therefore I have restored normal size. If you mean to keep things discreet, and possibly privately addressed to MelanieN, you can go to her talk page. As it stands, your comment is drifting into WP:FORUM territory. — JFG ^talk 23:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I meant to say that was the motivation of birther-believers, not of all his supporters. I have corrected it.--MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This goes beyond our mandate as editors -- we're not paid to say "he espoused racist views, but he did it only to please racists because it's not a good idea to call him a racist". JFG's telepathy helmet may be working just fine, but unless RS report as much, it can't be used. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: if you leave out "/xenophobe(s)". wumbolo ^^^ 16:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I disagree. If (1) is true, Trump is a explicitly a racist. If (2) is true, Trump is at least implicitly a racist because exploiting the racist views of others for personal gain is in itself a racist act, is it not? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Melanie. The birther paragraph simply does not belong in the "Racial views" section. The strongest evidence in multiple RS points to his concern over presidential qualifications (natural born citizen). In fact, President Obama himself, speaks about the bc issue. While there are some scholarly articles published in journals that attribute racism as the motivation, there are multiple RS that dispute it. I don't know of any RS that can say unequivocally that Trump's research into the bc was racially motivated. Let's move the paragraph to a relevant section (as noted in the RfC), and we can always consider adding a line or two with in-text attribution cited to a scholarly source indicating the belief that Trump's birther question was racially motivated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

exploiting the racist views of others for personal gain is in itself a racist act, is it not? It is not. It is shrewd, cynical, opportunistic politics. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think they are mutually exclusive. The Southern strategy was a means of securing votes, but was inherently racist as it stoked the beliefs and prejudices of white southerners. TheValeyard (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an unsupported opinion, like everything else in this debate including my own. Even if "true", it wouldn't warrant placement of birtherism in a section of Trump's BLP titled "Racial views". ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

We are talking about his VIEWS; that's what the section is called. If he exploited the racist views of others, that is cynicism, not personal racism. Or to be more precise, since there was obviously a strong political motivation for him to do so, we have no way of telling if he was also motivated by racism or not. Similarly, he accepts the support of white nationalists and tries to avoid criticizing them, but that does not make him a white nationalist. A politician needs to accept support where they can find it; that often means accepting the support of people with whom they strongly disagree. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence he strongly disagrees? What makes you think he does? HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

There is precious little "evidence" on either side of this debate. Where's yours? Melanie's comment is loaded with reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

While I may not always agree with MelanieN, I do agree that her comments are customarily "loaded with reasoning" as Mandruss pointed out. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Atsme; The birther paragraph simply does not belong in the "Racial views" section.

There is no clear-cut consensus when looking towards the RSs on this one.

Nor can we debate Trump's motives and what we believe had to be on his mind, and establish our own editorial policy. Why? Because as ad hoc all-volunteer amateur authors (wikipedians), that would be original research and we mustn't pretend we are qualified to depart from RSs and forge our own unique take on the matter.

McCain's Constitutional qualifications to be president was raised by his detractors but gained zero traction from the mainstream media (article link to The Washington Post) so the issue was dropped. Some have written here that Trump can't do the same thing to Obama that was done to McCain and raise the Birther issue because Obama is Black—and that fact couldn't have been lost on Trump—so it must be racist. Such arguments are a classic example of a person's race becoming an issue because some people want to make it an issue.

Absent a clear picture from a good majority of reliable sources, we have no business running off on our own declaring the “Birther = racism.” Greg L (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps birther ≅ racism or birther ⊆ racism. We often have a problem with terms related to racism as the area is broader than most think. I don’t think we would have any difficulty finding many RS that consider birtherism related to racism. O3000 (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If the preponderance of the RSs say so, then we should follow, Objective300. It will be interesting to see how such RSs authoritatively explain how John McCain can claim those old birther objections over his running for office were racially motivated. Greg L (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

There was never a claim that McCain lied about his birthplace. Only a false claim that it mattered that quickly died out. The claims that Obama was born in Kenya lasted for a decade, was believed by tens of millions, and included that he lied about both his birthplace and religion. It still hasn’t died out, with Arpaio saying he will call for an investigation when he becomes Senator. O3000 (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh. I didn’t know Arpaio's two cents and those of people other than Trump ought to influence Wikipedia's take on the matter while we try to establish a logical, unbiased, fair, encyclopedic treatment on the subject. Such endeavors normally call for merely looking towards the weight of truly reliable RSs for guidance. If I understand you correctly now with your 11:40, 9 April 2018 post, Objective3000…

You seem to be saying that if politicians, who since Roman times dug up dirt on anything regarding their opponents, claim that someone wasn't a natural-born citizen because they were born in Panama—and that much is true and the opponent identifies as White—then that's *not* racist; and if a political opponent claims their opponent was born in Kenya, which is false, and the opponent identifies as Black, then that's racist. I'm not so sure about that, and here's why…

When logic and points such as yours are allowed to be introduced into this discussion, it necessarily introduces bias; like when Trump said “Lock her up” over the mishandling of classified materials. Amongst his detractors, he must have been—and still is—a misogynist to utter such words. This is why we look towards the weight of truly reliable RSs, without cherry picking them. This is because attempting to debate such matters here is necssarily and strongly influenced by the individual biases of the volunteer editors who inhabit this venue. Our busying ourselves by imagining what must have been going on in Trump's mind is beyond the purview of wikipedians because it doesn't even rise to the level of Original Research.

Please leave your citations about what Arpaio said and will no-doubt say in the future out of this discussion as they don't interest me; he's not an RS. Greg L (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Citations of RS that are about what Arpaio said are valid. If Arpaio's antics are widely discussed in such sources, they may be significant content for various WP articles per WP:WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this WikiPedia or a TDS party in a "cry closet." Personal opinion on matters such as "racism" and "misogyny" have no place on WikiPedia. Both "racism" and "misogyny" have very clearly defined definitions and unless you can demonstrate examples where DJT has show a pervasive pattern of either, the whole sections need to be deleted. Do you have examples where DJT refuses to place women in prominent positions of power in his business and administration? Of course you do not so any accusation of "misogyny" are utter bullspit. Same goes for the overused liberal tag of "racist." Do you have any instances where DJT claimed white people are superior to other races? If not, then the whole racism issue also must deleted. Some people need to decide if they want Wikipedia to be an impartial and authoritative source, or a part of the DNC "echo chamber." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdotp (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bdotp: Yeah, okay. We'll get right on it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, WP:NPA is still policy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I'm aware of that. What's your point? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

First, our personal opinions are irrelevant. We use WP:RS and they are abundant. Secondly, “racism” does not have a clearly defined definition. As our own article on racism says: Today, the use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition. You can find the cites there. Third, can you please be civil? TDS party in a cry closet and DNC echo chamber are not helpful. O3000 (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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