Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:22, 20 January 2018

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Donald Trump. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Donald Trump at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Presidency of Donald Trump Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2018 Q1 List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections Donald Trump on social media …or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

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

There is a request, submitted by Lionsdude148, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "This is the President of the United States".

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LittleRobbinBird (article contribs).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This was the most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of December 6–12, 2015; January 31–February 6, February 21–27, February 28–March 5, March 6–12, March 13–19, October 9–15, October 16–22, November 6–12, and November 13–19, 2016; January 15–21 and January 22–28, 2017, according to the Top 25 Report.

Open RfCs and surveys

• #RfC: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead

• v
• e

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Misplaced Pages's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

68. Do not expand the brief mention of Trumpism in the lead. (RfC January 2025)

RfC: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the lead include mention of the allegations of sexual misconduct on Trump's part? --Tataral (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This would summarize content already in the article body, in this subsection.

If yes, I tentatively propose the wording "Since 2016, about 15 women have accused him of previous sexual misconduct, which he denied", but I would like to note that the exact wording shouldn't be considered to be set in stone, and that we might need to adjust it as things develop.

If you agree in principle with the proposal to include mention of the allegations but do not support the exact wording proposed above, you may support the proposal but indicate that you don't support the exact wording proposed – if necessary we will have a new discussion or RfC about the exact wording.

Survey: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead

Yes – include in the lead
No – do not include in the lead

• Yes: The sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump were the most widely covered issue in reliable sources during the presidential election. The issue continues to receive extensive coverage in reliable sources, more than a full year later. Its importance is highlighted by the fact that the coverage of the allegations against Trump are linked to a broader discussion of sexual misconduct in society. For examples of recent sources, I refer to the previous discussion we had on this. During his presidential term so far, the sexual misconduct allegations are, next to the Russia issue, clearly the single most covered issue related to Trump in reliable sources, possibly the most covered issue.′

As a rule of thumb, any issue worthy of an in-depth stand-alone article should be considered notable enough for at least a brief mention in the lead section of the main article on the relevant subject. The misconduct allegations have such an in-depth stand-alone article, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. --Tataral (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. Insignificant in relation to the rest of activities. Should he face impeachment or significant legal action this may be different. RfC is not neutrally worded.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• RfC is not neutrally worded. Fixed after discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: i'd say it's pretty significant since he admitted it on audio. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes to the idea, but no to the proposed wording. It is very well reported that Trump has been accused by multiple people on multiple occasions, but the dating and number of accusations I don't think are appropriate. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to the idea, but no to the proposed wording (yes, there's an echo in here). I'm uncomfortable with the lede having things like "about 15 women" in it, because it sounds vague. My preferred text would be something like this: "Trump has been credibly accused of sexual misconduct, which he has denied." I use "credibly" because the Access Hollywood tape has him admitting it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• No As with my comments regarding Woody Allen and Al Franken's (pre-resignation) ledes, allegations should have some palpable effect on the subject's career before it gets entered into the lede. The similar RfC for Al Franken seemed to be headed in to a similar conclusion until his resignation made it redundant. Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should be a short and simple summary of why he is notable. There's no denying that the allegations have received coverage but it's hard to believe that his social media behavior, a daily topic amongst all print and television media, doesn't get more. We even have a lengthy article about that behavior too (Donald Trump on social media) but it doesn't belong in the lede either. There's also the WP:WEIGHT issue; there's very little about the allegations in this article, almost all of the relevant section deals with the Billy Bush tape. We should revisit this if something does happen, which ended up being the case with Franken.LM2000 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

LM2000, WEIGHT?? Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations creates enormous weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

We can always add the mention of social media later on, but I doubt that people would accept it if this RfC fails. Just to avoid any possible misunderstandings or confusion, I am not saying that we should say yes to this so that people are not dissuaded from future RfC's but just that we should not keep information out of the lead just because we have not decided to yet put other information into the lead. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No unless it becomes a bigger issue in his life for some other reason, for example a high profile lawsuit. These allegations have simply not impacted him or his biography in a big way. They could be important in the biography of someone who has fewer reasons to be notable, but Trump's biography is so full of notable things that the sexual allegations are not currently worthy of inclusion in the lede. He's been described as "Teflon", i.e., these accusations have failed to stick. And I disagree with your assertion that these allegations are the second-most covered issue related to Trump. How about his finances and refusal to release his tax returns? How about his popularity with, and empowering of, white nationalists? Those things are not in the lede. We have discussed this before; consensus was to include the allegations in the text but not the lede; that's still my opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I should add that if anything, these allegations are LESS worthy of inclusion now, a year into his very eventful presidency, than they were when we previously reached consensus not to include them. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The passage of time makes these multiple, credible accusations no less ghastly. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it adds other information with a higher-priority claim to inclusion in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. He is innocent until proven guilty, and this would be a BLP violation.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• (Responses moved to Discussion.) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• No The allegations fail weight. PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• PackMecEng, WEIGHT?? Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations creates enormous weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not so much actually given his overall life and notability. PackMecEng (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

But enough for short mention in the lead. Keep in mind that we aren't just talking about some past events, but an ever-present and unresolved series of accusations, IOW Justice delayed is justice denied. When you see a picture of him, imagine a bucket about to be poured over his head. It's in the picture all the time, until this gets resolved in a court of law. It's a weighty matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It's undue weight to say that a dude has bragged about "grabbing by the pussy" when he said it? A lad insane talk 03:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is not about moral judgments and nobody here is making a moral judgment argument. At issue (mainly) is amount of RS coverage, and importance relative to the rest of Trump's life. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of coverage, but I tend more toward liberal news media, maybe they cover that more. A lad insane talk 04:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• No per MelanieN.- MrX 17:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• No per LM200. Unless Trump is forced to resign because of them, the allegations do not belong on the lede. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. In fact, we have no other choice but to do it without violating LEAD and NPOV. It certainly has the weight (enough for at least two sub-articles), and since it deserves its own section (and articles), it should be mentioned. One sentence may be enough. Failure to mention is a serious multiple-policy violation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• No. I think it violates both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. MB298 (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• No I love that the two prior votes are Yes/No citing violation of the same policy. I think a clearer read is WP:PROPORTION. If he had materialized from the ether in 2015, this goes in the lede as proportional. But DT has been a nationally known figure for 35 years; his is a long and meandering story. I would compare and contrast Clinton, whose lede mentions Lewinsky (because of impeachment) but not Jones/Flowers despite them being huge players in his story. For the record, I am a DT hater. GCG (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• No POV, unproven and unimportant in relation to such things as policy and accomplishments. Besides, we now know that some women were paid to claim sexual misconduct by Trump.Phmoreno (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Phmoreno: Who's "we"? I don't know that, and I don't see it at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Got a solid RS link or a pointer to within that article? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If I had to guess they probably mean this and this. People offered money for victims to come forward and the thought was that some might be false just to get the money. Kind of shady but so far no proof that any made it up for the money. PackMecEng (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Presenting unproven allegations as fact in the same breath (!vote) as opposing content about allegations because they're unproven. Nice. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• No per MelanieN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• No I don't give a rat's ass if we have this discussion every week of every month, until something new comes up I'm going to stick by a big fat NO. Hopefully all of the people pushing this rubbish crap migrate to RationalWiki. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• No per MelanieN and others. I also note in response to Bull TomKat is at least one recent case of a media frenzy topic which became in time a huge standalone article and is now a much shortened redirect. Cruise and Rrump are both individuals who are in the constant spotlight and could theoretically have dozens or hundreds of articles about them based on news coverage alone. But that is one of the reasons[REDACTED] is WP:NOTNEWS. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per Tataral and BullRangifer etc. The lead is currently short, so there is no problem adding this along with the other issues mentioned by MelanieN. zzz (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes; the coverage is and was overwhelming to the point where it seems silly to say that it is WP:UNDUE. The WP:NPOV arguments - and, even more vacantly, the argument that some editors don't find the accusations credible - are specious because our job is simply to report what that overwhelming coverage says; the fact that the accusations exist is well-cited, and the overwhelming waves of coverage surrounding them (combined with continued coverage even today) shows that they are obviously WP:DUE. Most of the !votes to omit therefore seem to be a variation on WP:IDONTLIKEIT - people who recognize that it is well-cited, recognize the heavy coverage, but who feel that the coverage itself is biased or undue or untrustworthy or something along those lines. But those are not valid arguments, and omitting such an otherwise obviously notable aspect of the topic from the lead would be an unequivocal WP:NPOV violation itself. --Aquillion (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not taking a position (yet), but WP:BALASP ≠ WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And I think at least some of the UNDUE !votes are actually BALASP !votes with the wrong shortcut—they are both parts of NPOV—and some people are making BALASP-like arguments without citing it (people in both groups might wish to update their !votes for clarity). Also note that PROPORTION, cited above, is a helpful (not) alias for BALASP. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, not in the lead - per WP:BLP guidance to write conservatively and it has not had such a significant impact on his life to suit WP:LEAD. Mostly it seems an election event, now seeing a bit of post-Weinstein interest but nothing new has happened. Also, I would suggest 'numerous' in the sectionn of the article rather than a specific numbering as the cites say 15 and 17 and 19, and the individuals do not match and not all are current. Markbassett (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, include rape allegations in the introduction. After discussion on Jimbotalk and reflection. Trump's personality is essential to convey accurately. EllenCT (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• @EllenCT: This RfC has nothing to do with any rape allegations. It's about whether to summarize with one sentence the content at Donald Trump#Sexual misconduct allegations. The word rape does not occur there, and none of the allegations there approach rape. You may wish to revise (or re-evaluate) your !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The word "rape" currently occurs ten times in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Those accusations should be summarized in the lead of the main article. EllenCT (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Look a little deeper. The only rape allegation at that article is one Ivana made during their messy divorce, which she has since pretty much disavowed. It is considered so insignificant that it didn't make it into this article. It constitutes maybe 5% of what we would be summarizing in the one sentence here, if that, so the bolded part of your !vote simply misstates the question. Worse, it makes me wonder whether you fully understand the question. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:49, Today (UTC−6)

, , and should also be summarized here and in the WP:SUMMARY articles. EllenCT (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes per BullRangifer. If it's important enough to justify an entire article here, then WP:LEAD demands inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "If it's important enough to justify an entire article here, then WP:LEAD demands inclusion." Which policy or guideline says that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The lead is, by definition, the summary of the most important topics in an article. A topic significant enough to justify a lengthy article of its own makes it one of the most important topics in that article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• No It's WP:UNDUE weight. The accusations were a minor scandal and failed to make any significant impact. It's in the body of the article where it should be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• ?? Some of these accusations have been around for years. They just resurfaced and a few more women came forward. Their due weight is not based on the amount of footage in this article (a section required to be left behind when spinning off a large amount of material), but on the at least two sub-articles on the subject. There is abundant weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• WP:Weight isn't determined by its prevalence in other articles (or popularity among Misplaced Pages editors), but its prevalence in third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. The specific number and nature of extant articles on a current events type topic like this one will almost always be both comparatively incomplete and somewhat biased based on the amount of effort and time any individual editor is willing to expend on it. Also, as I think most of us know, it would certainly be possible to try to game the system by such unbalanced spinout articles by individual editors or groups of editors, knowingly or unknowingly. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. Tough decisions must be made. There simply isn't the real estate for anything on this subject. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Close question. For precedent I checked out Warren G. Harding, whose dalliances are mentioned in the lead section. In Trump's case, his sexual behavior practically sank his candidacy. While a close question, not a slam dunk, I would favor yes. (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• No - For now. Inclusion would give WP:UNDUE weight and they are of course allegations. Mention is the body is adequate. Meatsgains (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - There is ample policy on both sides of this issue, and no way to weigh it except by gut feel. My gut feel is as follows.
  WP:NPOV is not about avoiding negative content, and it seems to me we go a little too far in trying to avoid the appearance of anti-Trump bias. Of the 408 words in the lead, the following might be said to be Trump-negative: "...many of his public statements were controversial or false ... first without prior military or government service ... despite getting less of the popular vote ... election and policies have sparked numerous protests." I don't think that proportion fairly represents the body of reliable sources on Trump. He is objectively one of the two most controversial U.S. presidents since Nixon, Clinton being the other, and our current lead does not reflect that reality. It might as well be talking about Eisenhower. And Trump has been extremely controversial his entire life.
  I'm not terribly interested in "but what about issues X and Y" reasoning for the purpose of this RfC, as we could still be debating such things when Trump leaves office. Considering the lead's current length relative to the length of the article, there is room to add other things to the lead if they are deemed to have equal or greater importance. That does not need to further complicate this already complicated question in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - According to WP:LEAD, the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". With Trump, this is difficult since he has so many controversies. So I guess we are to determine the most prominent ones that should be summarized in the lead. But it can be argued that the sexual misconduct allegations is the most prominent of his controversies. This was a big part of the campaign coverage, so much so that many in the media felt his campaign was over when the access hollywood tape came out.JamesRoberts (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per Mandruss. I think adding would just be due, but it is complicated. There are other critical stuff I'd like to add to the lead; but I think this should be there, and there is room for it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:Weight. Long term and continued coverage in WP:RS. Casprings (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• No – Contrary to other recent cases (Weinstein, Cosby, O'Reilly, etc.), the sexual impropriety allegations against Trump did not make a dent in his life, despite intense scrutiny. Therefore they have undue weight for the lead of his main bio. We've had this discussion before, and it's fine to discuss it again whenever the press takes renewed interest in the topic. WP:Consensus can change, but I doubt it will today. — JFG 22:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Sexual misconduct is a very vague term in light of recent releases of information he had an affair it should be in the lead though I would support rewording it "transgressions"RoslinGenetics (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• No Simply put, it's innocent until proven guilty. Something that Trump hasn't been proven guilty of shouldn't be put in the lead. ParaNerd023 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead

(The following !vote and responses were copied/moved from Survey.) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. He is innocent until proven guilty, and this would be a BLP violation.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• In light of #MeToo and Trump's comments about Hillary Clinton, the "innocent until proven guilty" defense looks completely ridiculous. Besides, reliably-sourced information presented in the right weight would not be a BLP-violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Zigzig20s, you've been here long enough to know there is no violation of BLP. There is abundant RS sourcing to document that these allegations exist. That's all we're doing. All other articles for high profile men with such allegations include mention in the lead. Guilt or innocence is totally irrelevant. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Absent specific policy links, I agree with Scjessey and BullRangifer. We don't get to invent our own inclusion criteria and slap policy acronyms on them. I would expect a competent closer to discount that !vote completely. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Who? It is in Bill Clinton's lede because he admitted it. President Trump did no such thing, and it is pure gossip. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything anytime. If the allegations are ever proven to be true, there would still be an issue of weight. Clinton's sexual misconduct led to his near impeachment, yet there is only one sentence buried in the middle of a very long paragraph. It would be totally undue in President Trump's lede, especially now.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: this is ridiculous. you're being willfully ignorant. He admitted such behavior and it was even caught on audio. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• it is pure gossip. Pure gossip is somebody anonymously starting a rumor on the internet. Pure gossip might be one woman going public with allegations, pinning a target to her own back and adding a ton of stress to her previously peaceful life. Maybe even two women. Keep adding women and at some point you cross a threshold into the territory between pure gossip and court conviction. The threshold number is undefined but it's pretty clear we've crossed it, and I'm fairly certain policy does not prohibit (or require) attributed content in that territory. Argue UNDUE if you like, but calling it "pure gossip" only undermines your argument. And don't argue BLP unless you can point to part of BLP that says BLP-cool content in the body can become BLP-vio when summarized in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, the number changes nothing. It's still gossip. There has been no conviction, only allegations.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• If there were anything in policy to the effect that presence or absence of a court conviction should figure into our decisions, I suspect you would have linked it by now. If you want to stick to an argument that may be ignored by the closer, I'm sure the Yeses are happy to let you do it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Zigzig20s, now I'm going to question your COMPETENCE on the subject of BLP. Seriously. Your ideas are not coming from that policy. We document f###ing EVERYTHING here, including serious gossip, as long as it's notable enough to be mentioned in RS. Mere garden variety "gossip" is what is pushed only by National Enquirer and such unreliable sources.

By contrast, this content is from ALL the most notable RS that exist. They are serious allegations of sexual misconduct, groping, and even violent forcible rape of a 13-year old minor at a party held by Trump's good friend for many years, Jeffrey Epstein, who was known to provide underage girls for his party-goers. He is a registered sex offender. In 2008, Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution, for which he served 13 months in prison.

No, your competence is sadly lacking. You really need to read BLP. ANY KIND of negative information is potential content if it's reported in RS. This is major enough to get two articles here, which are abundantly sourced. You can't brush this off as mere "gossip". Guilt or innocence, and lack of any conviction, are totally irrelevant. We are duty bound to document it. We have done that. It is weighty enough for a sentence in the lead, just like all other biographies where this is a topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, mystery solved. Zigzig20s is applying WP:BLPCRIME while ignoring (or forgetting) its first sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that first sentence:

"This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN."

We treat private persons with kid gloves, but those gloves come off when dealing with public persons, and the higher up, the more vulnerable they get. They have chosen to let their lives be examined and publicized in embarrassingly close detail, and we must document how RS report it. Exposure comes with their job, and documentation comes with ours. The President of the USA gets ZERO special protection. On the contrary, he gets the least protection of all, and that has always been the case with every President, both at Misplaced Pages and in real life. We follow policy closely, but boldly. We don't keep negative information out of his article because someone doesn't like it or vague wikilawyering, and most of the objections and !votes fall in the category and must be discounted by the closer.

If a subject is worth a whole section (and in this case at least two articles!), it deserves mention in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Give me a break, you can continue to bombast these obviously libelous accusations to such a degree where it sounds like it came from the lips of Walter Cronkite himself, but they are still at the end of the day unproven allegations with no merit in the court of law and therefor no merit to be included in this article. I have no idea why you'd think including these into the lede is such a grand idea; legitimately I do not. You're pushing for this, and even the mental illness malarkey, solely on RS alone without any evidence of wrongdoing provided by the justice system. Last I checked people were innocent before proven guilty but not on Misplaced Pages it seems, not when Donald Trump is concerned no no no. You are right about one thing, the President gets the least protection of all. THIS Presidents gets the LEAST protection; everyone else we suddenly become sane enough to not include equally as false accusations about Kenya or Bush doing 9/11. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow! 70.44.154.16, your incompetence to edit here is showing. Actually we DO base content "solely on RS alone", and often "without any evidence". That is our job. You don't seem to understand our policies very well. The following replies by EvergreenFir and Mandruss are pretty good. I suggest you learn from them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a court of law, though. If reliable sources widely report something, we should give it due coverage in our encyclopedia article. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME, "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to public figures. We go by Misplaced Pages content policy, whether it pleases you or not. If you wish to propose a change to policy, this is the wrong place to do it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No - Innocent until proven guilty as Zigzig20s has said. It is pure conjecture and gossip. I'm sure many Wikipedians would like to see that installed into the President Trump Misplaced Pages article solely to discredit him, no doubt it will happen sooner or later. ThePlane11 (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem unaware that policy-free !votes are ignored by the closer and therefore have no effect on the outcome. Please cite specific parts of Misplaced Pages policy to support your !vote. As stated above multiple times, policy specifically precludes "innocent until proven guilty" reasoning for public figures. Further, related content is already installed into the President Trump Misplaced Pages article, in this subsection, and there is no proposal to remove it, so you also seem to have missed the whole point of this RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes He admitted such behavior and it was even caught on audio. As the POTUS, it is highly notable and personally, I think it should be included regardless of the outcome of this RFC. His behavior is unprecedented and the effect on the integrity of the office is too. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss Feel the same way. The lead doesn't really create an accurate picture of him or his image. The campaign section too doesn't really capture the controversial nature of his campaign. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Still undecided on it, but people seem to be hyperbolic in regards to this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Racial views

In light of Trump's recent comments that are being described as racist, unforgivable, vulgur, ugly, etc. it occurs to me that we need to have a serious discussion about how this article covers Trump's long history of unfortunate statements, comments, tweets, and actions that have been widely-characterized as racist, racially motivated, and racially insensitive. I propose a dedicated section that would include an overall analysis, and then lay out the evolution of Trump's words/actions and their impact. It would probably best fit under the 'Political image' section. It should look at everything from 1989 forward, with emphasis on the past two and a half years. The trick of course will be to keep it to a reasonable length. Please share your thoughts.- MrX 00:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 22#Accusations of racism
• Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 19#Trump's alleged racism

Trump’s racism isn’t incidental to his political appeal. It’s the core of it. zzz (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It's time already for another Trump is racist talk? Just does not seem like a good idea. PackMecEng (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The previous discussions are from August 2016. zzz (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a "talk" about whether Trump is a racist or not; it's a proposal to organize and improve the content about what I believe is a defining aspect of the subject. It is a theme that comes up frequently in the press, and it has roots in the 1980s, perhaps earlier. If you have a valid objection about having such a discussion, I would like to hear it, but if your only contribution is to flippantly dismiss it, then that's not helpful at all.- MrX 01:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it is kind of a "talk" about if Trump is racist or not, if you are proposing a dedicated section to all the perceived racist things he has said or done. We should at least be honest on what you are purposing if you wish to have a meaningful discussion on the topic. PackMecEng (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, this must not be talked about. "But all our articles have a liberal bias!!!!!" (sarcasm).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha, yeah not what I mean. But thank you! PackMecEng (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more strongly with MrX's suggestion. Thanks for bringing up the suggestion. This is a good article from CNN for anyone that needs a reminder. ] Gandydancer (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. There are obviously a lot of sources to work with, including a number that analyze it on a longer-term scale.- MrX 01:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, you don't need to clarify, amplify, or interpret what I wrote in the OP. It was perfectly clear. If you don't want to participate, fine, but please don't disrupt.- MrX 01:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a valid point, but if you disagree that is fine. PackMecEng (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think someone should just add the material. Then we can discuss it. Otherwise some editors are gonna play endless games to prevent *anything* from being said on the topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree and let's not get hung up on the label "racist", which will lead to endless unproductive discussion. But his views and their evolution and persistence are one of the defining characteristics of his public life. Somebody should add the content and we can work to improve it if necessary. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Will Rogers said: "There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you." I agree with MrX, (and zzz’s addition) including the suggestion that it be of reasonable length. And that’s the rub. At some point we need to talk elephants crowding the room. I don’t know when. But, at some point, "when" becomes "now". O3000 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a good place to start is to locate a few high quality sources that cover the subject from at a macro level. As a first draft thumbnail sketch of an outline, I propose:

1. Within its first year, Trump's presidency often found itself fending off accusations of racial insensitivity, tacit support of white supremacists, and racism. Analysts tied this to Trump's history...
2. Trumps history from the Central Park 5 to birtherism; from Mexico sending rapists to present.
3. Reaction and impact.

- MrX 02:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

For 2, also his housing discrimination cases .Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, good point.- MrX 02:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

CP5 is important. His initial reaction and his reaction 17 years later. His housing consent decrees long past may be too much. Anything with strong sourcing since the start of his campaign is fair game. I wouldn’t press heavily on his inept comments re Charlottesville. O3000 (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me expand on the Central Park thingy. He didn’t do that for votes. He didn’t do that for condo sales. He spent a pile of money to press for the death of folks with no conviction. When they were exonerated, he refused to accept it. He asked what were black teens doing in CP if not to cause trouble. As if a black teen wouldn’t go to a park if not to rape. O3000 (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You should probably use a better source than a NPR commentary. PackMecEng (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It's in the public record. O3000 (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the NPR source listed above by VM. A non-commentary source would be better. PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the racist remarks re Puerto Rico. ] Gandydancer (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Common dreams is a nonprofit progressive site, there has to be better sources. PackMecEng (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course there are better article sources for an article. For our talk page the one I gave is excellent. Gandydancer (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Then you should cite those, not ones that would not be suitable for the proposed section. PackMecEng (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump pardoned racial profiler Arpaio (now planning to run for senate as "a big supporter of President Trump"). (Arpaio a 'priest' in the 'death-cult' of Trumpism .) Tweeted that majority of killings of whites are by blacks, and continually ties blacks with inner-city violence . Retweeted fake Muslim immigrant videos from UK neo-Nazis . zzz (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Really? Arpaio as a priest in the death cult of Trump? wow PackMecEng (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

• What about creating an article on MrX's proposal? I have a feeling there will be enough for a standalone article. It could be summarized in this article and linked to the main article. Just an idea. Also, ignore this section if there isn't any agreement on this idea. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I like that idea, especially considering that he is only in his first year... Gandydancer (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have begun an article in one of my sandbox pages if people want to work on it. I made a couple of opening statements with references. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops! here is the link: . The proposed title is at the top of the page, and this of course can be changed per consensus. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support A stand alone article with a brief summary and link in this article is a very good idea. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that a new article is probably warranted. Perhaps it could be called Donald Trump racial provocations or Donald Trump racial views . Whatever summary is left here should not be so short as to misrepresent the extent to which the subject has been covered in reliable sources. Certainly it should be no shorter that the 'Manhattan developments' section in which we go into mind-numbing detail about routine real estate deals. - MrX 03:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Everybody feel free to make additions and changes to the article as we go along. --Steve Quinn (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking of moving it to the main space. I will cite consensus support here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Whether Trump is or is not a racist is relatively irrelevant here. What we focus on is documenting what RS say on the issue, and there are plenty of RS which do that. There should be enough for a stand alone article which ends up getting a section here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I find it interesting that we don't even well represent his statements/actions (travel ban etc) characterized as islamophobic. You won't find "muslim ban" here either in the campaign section or in the immigration section. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is interesting. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I moved the page to an inactive Draft space based on a recommendation. Here it is and I updated the above link. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely the widely covered stuff about islamophobia, birther stuff, and charlottesville etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please also make sure to inclide his close personal and business relationships with people of various ethnicities including endorsements he received and that he got a higher percentage of votes from Blacks and hispanocs than the prior Republican candidate. Yoi should also note his making MLK's birthplace the first national historic monument in Georgia. The personal views he has expressed should also be included spelling out his condemnation of hate and hate groups. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if that's is covered in relation to his views; if not it should be included like anything else per due weight. Also if including condemnations should include how, say, his condmenation of charlotesville was from "overwhelming pressure" and "seen as long overdue" Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian is almost as biased as the other sources and commentaries noted here. I'm pretty sure his condemmation of hate groups and violence has been widely reported as have his action making MLK's birthplace the first National Monument in Georgia, and his elextion results. What we shouldn't be doing is making essays and stringing together sources to try and make a point. I'm sure there are sources noting his penchant for tweets and comments that have stirred controversy. Without going overboard on recentism it's worth noting his communocation style and the protests responding. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:BIASED. I mean no, the "shithole" comment just by itself has been covered about 5-100 times more than that MLK thing, including internationally. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That's correct. FloridaArmy, we don't add material to articles just to balance unpleasant material. Articles should proportionately reflect the coverage in reliable sources. This is explained in WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 13:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Uh, you ever heard about the "some of my best friends are black" argument? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

VM, Do you have a source that he is making that argument? I do not think it would be wise to source it to you for the article. PackMecEng (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Dawha? The source for "making that argument" is the comment posted by user FloridaArmy at 7:55 on January 12.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, maybe stick to content not contributors. PackMecEng (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I am addressing a specific argument he made. So yeah, I'm sticking to content. Just because I am referring to a comment made by a contributor does not mean I'm discussing contributors. Otherwise, every single comment on here would be "discussing contributors". Which would be ridiculous. See how that works? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That would indeed be ridiculous, if that was what happened. Which of course it is not, hyperbolic statements aside. That is why I was asking for a source before to back up your statement, the "some of my best friends are black" argument is a pretty tired one not used by Trump and rarely used by RS. So from a content point of view not applicable. See what I mean? PackMecEng (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding to that - FloridaArmy should see this journal paper - having black friends doesn't necessarily mean a change in racial attitude. But getting a little more on-topic, a sentence on his essential defense of "Look at my African American over here!" could be included; but so for the lambasting of it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we need a dedicated section. This is a major topic of his political worldview; it is both one of the issues he and his supporters seem to focus the most on, and also one of the topics that receives the most coverage in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Tataral (and others), there is a draft started here. I suggest we bring it to 'Start' or 'C' class then move it to main space. There is a lot of material in existing articles to draw from. In about an hour, when I should be fully awake, I'm going to flesh out an outline in the form of section headings and then start filling in each section to a minimal degree.- MrX 14:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments now condemned as racist by UN. Remarks by Donald Trump describing immigrants from Africa and Haiti as coming from “shithole countries” were racist, the United Nations human rights office has said, as it led global condemnation of the US president. Revise to 1000 times more coverage than the MLK whatever. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It's really irrelevant what the UN says. Saying a country is a shithole country doesn't make one racist. Many of those countries are shithole countries, and it has nothing to do with race. Putting this into the article would be a massive BLP and UNDUE and POV issue. And of course we would need impeccable sourcing that he actually said it, which he denies. Sir Joseph 14:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Putting this into the article would be a massive BLP and UNDUE and POV issue." <-- No, this is completely ass backwards and illustrates well the POV problem that exists on so many Trump related articles. Anything that might Trump looks bad, EVEN IF he himself is responsible for it, is whitewashed out of them with WP:CRYBLP. No, keeping this out would be a POV issue. "And of course we would need impeccable sourcing that he actually said it, which he denies." <-- Impeccable sourcing is not a problem since every single outlet has commented on it. And yeah, he denies it NOW (though yesterday the statement WH released didn't deny it) that shit hit the fan and he's catching crap for it even from some Republicans. But so what? His denial is completely irrelevant to the issue other than that we should note it in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly right. Editors can't just throw up alphabet soup and expect to be taken seriously. As some point, WP:CIR has to come into play.- MrX 16:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and closers are far too lax about enforcing policy due the shitstorm that the community tolerates when they do, and that is a serious problem. I've said it a million times, mostly to deaf ears, but we should be seeing more closes go against the numbers. Without exception, when I've asked for examples of that, that's ended the conversation. And, even if that situation were improved, we would need a closer for every discussion of any importance, as there would be no other way to enforce policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I think not many closers brave enough to say go against the numbers because the arguments don't conform to policy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Explain to me then how it's not a BLP issue or POV issue to include this? Right now we have conflicting statements on what was actually said and there is no real RS on what was said, only allegations or "he said she said" and to call someone or a comment racist needs impeccable sourcing. In addition, even if he did call certain countries shitholes, that doesn't make it racist at all. Was Obama called an antisemite for calling Netanyahu "chickenshit?" Sir Joseph 17:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works. We don't have to disprove your spurious assertion. We are talking about a section on Trump's 45 year history of racial comments and actions (which include executive orders, lawsuits, statements, comments, and tweets). If yesterday didn't happen, the section would still need to be included in this article per WP:DUEWEIGHT because of the 1000s of reliable sources that have documented it for 45 years.- MrX 17:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, referring to Africa as a shithole country kind of makes you racist and stupid, but we're talking about what third party sources report. The UN's view is not only relevant —it's highly noteworthy.- MrX 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is it racist? Most of those countries that was mentioned are run by dictators, corrupt and all around shitty countries. It doesn't make one racist for stating the obvious. Look at Haiti which he supposedly called shithole, it sits on the same island as the Domincan Republic yet that is really all that can be said as a comparison between the two. Sometimes countries are shitholes and it's not necessarily racist to say so. And we can't report on this regardless because it's just he said she said, until there is ample evidence this is just more gossip. Sir Joseph 14:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sir Joseph, thanks for proving that you really have no business editing this topic area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Coming from you I take that as a huge compliment. Sir Joseph 16:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Statements can be attributed; also this is more about in general about his well-documented statements in support of birtherism (racist conspiracy theory) and other statements.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It should also be noted that it is not the UN as a whole making that statement but a UN official. PackMecEng (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Reported in RS as the UN; IIRC it's a spokesperson.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, UN human rights spokesman - and last I checked spokesmen speak for their organizations.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup I found the article you were referring to, he speaks for the human rights commission. Not the UN as a whole. Thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"It's really irrelevant what the UN says" – no, it's not. --Tataral (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Sen. Dick Durbin: President Trump used 'hate-filled, vile and racist' language in immigration meeting". Frankly, it's freakin' ridiculous that information on Trump's views regarding race have been kept out of this (and might I add, several other) articles for all this time, since it's like THE major issue surrounding his presidency.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone feel free to jump in and help with the article. Then we can distill out a ~6-8 paragraph summary to put in this article.- MrX 15:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the page has been created, it should be linked to Political positions of Donald Trump. However, the "political positions" of the subject should not be a subsection of his election campaign (as currently on this page). This should be an upper level section. But one can reasonably argue that the page is about his personal views, rather than about a "political position" (as a President). Than it can be also mentioned and linked from this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Before we link it to his main BLP we should let it settle down for a bit. To much changing right now and it is no where near good enough condition. It really should not of been moved out of draft space yet either. PackMecEng (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not policy-based reasoning. The article is a C class article with excellent sourcing. It can be linked now.- MrX 17:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

At the point I reverted the link to the new article, it was still in a shitty mess. While things have improved greatly since then, the article still has multiple issues. There's no hurry, so I recommend we ONLY link to this new article at the same time as we add an appropriate summary of it, otherwise it just looks like a bit of a POV fork. Patience! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, such a section and article hasn't been there for years, can wait a few hours/days. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah no, that is far from a C class article especially about a BLP and if by excellent sources you mean many opinion and commentary pieces you would be correct. Otherwise you are just wrong in your assessment. PackMecEng (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Definitely a class C, on its way to B. Most of the sources are objective news sources, not commentary. Almost all of them came from stable, established articles. It's also not a BLP. You see, the 'B' in BLP mean biography.- MrX 19:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@MrX:. You do know that just because you say these things that does not make them fact right? Are you trying to argue that a complete article about a BLP does not fall into the BLP category? Take a look at the talk page for the article and look at the big BLP banner at the top, you are sorely mistaken in your views. PackMecEng (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't ping me again. I have no interest in pursuing this line of discussion.- MrX 19:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

PME is correct as to BLP, of course, as any read of the lead of WP:BLP shows. No opinion on the rest. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope that it's OK that I added a section to this article using the lead from what is now the main article. What with a world-wide explosion of news coverage on this incident I felt that we needed to put something in the article. And, it will help direct people to the new article. It needs perhaps work and the refs need fixing. Gandydancer (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Popcornduff for fixing the language in the racial views section - think the same needs to be done Donald Trump racial views. Am also wondering about adding this sort of criticism across the body, and perhaps to the lead... Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC) I did fix up some of it. I really do think that "Many of Trump's comments have been criticized as racist" should be in the lead and/or his policies have been described as bigoted/islamophobic/something like that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter:, regarding your comment: "I really do think that "Many of Trump's comments have been criticized as racist" should be in the lead and/or his policies have been described as bigoted/islamophobic/something like that". I agree. And the lede is supposed to summarize what is in the body of the article. If this is covered in the body then is should be appropriate for the lede. But, I am interested in other editors' opinion because this is strong stuff and I think some sort of consensus would be helpful (imho). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Steve Quinn I've proposed it below. Leads indeed should summarize the body. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Reboot and use lead from sub-article

This is an example of a "backwards" spinoff situation. Normally one creates an article (this one) and a section like this one gets so bloated that it creates an undue weight situation. To honor WP:PRESERVE, that content is not deleted or pared down, but is spun off into a sub-article, leaving a nice section and "main" article link. Well, now we do have Donald Trump racial views.

Here we're discussing what to include in this section, and ignoring a simpler, easier, and more logical solution. Just use the lead from the Donald Trump racial views article. If written properly, that lead should summarize the article and be very usable here. Then pick one or two of the best summarizing phrases and sources to include in the lead here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that anything about racial attitudes should go into the lede of THIS article, I disagree. We have currently created a very nice, DUE, well sourced, several-paragraph section about "racial views" as a subsection of "Image". That seems to be working very well, but it's not an important enough aspect of the entire biography to be included in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I obviously disagree. No more than a sentence would do it: "Trump has been accused of racist attitudes." The due weight is provided by the existence of an entire sub-article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, what do you think about just using the lead from the sub-article? The content here is being created ad hoc and not necessarily balanced. The lead there would do the job much better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Cancellation of Visit to UK

Is some written mention warranted for his cancellation of a visit to the United Kingdom in February? ChieftanTartarus (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. It seems like routine scheduling information.- MrX 13:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

His potential visit to the UK has been one of the most discussed topics in the UK for nearly a year, and certainly the most controversial issue (especially considering the fact that the UK Parliament quite seriously debated banning him from entering the UK, that he is already banned from some local areas due to "islamophobic propaganda" and a "bigoted attitude towards women and ethnic minorities" and that he has earned the distinction of being barred from the UK parliament over "racism and sexism"). He also cancelled the visit "amid fears of mass protests". I think this should be mentioned in the article, especially given the widespread opinion (apparently shared by Trump) that the UK is the US' most important ally. --Tataral (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think in a sentence in foreign policy perhaps? As part of a description of UK-US relations. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand the importance a little better. I agree, a sentence or two should be able to cover it.- MrX 16:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Any mention of this would have to include the lies he told on Twitter about it, of course. He blamed the Obama administration for selling the old US embassy for "peanuts" (it was already owned by the Duke of Westminster and the US just LEASED it) and building an expensive new one, when in fact the decision was made during the Bush administration due to security concerns. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This could be mentioned in several other articles, including the foreign policy one and the timeline one, as well as United Kingdom–United States relations - but not in this biography IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. If it was a official state visit, I'd want to see it included here, but this was just to be at a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new embassy. ValarianB (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think what was heavily discussed in the UK was a different UK trip by Trump, which I believe is still on at this point. Yet another goofy Trump event. But, seems trivial to me. O3000 (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

We might mention (at those articles where we do it) that he claimed he was canceling because the new embassy he was supposed to open was "a bad deal made by the Obama administration." (The decision was actually made during the George W. Bush administration). "Wanted me to cut ribbon-NO!" (Um, didn't he know about this long ago when he agreed to the visit?) --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Possibly in the Presidency of Donald Trump article but not here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added it into the article which you suggested above, thank you for your opinions everyone. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding criticized as racist to lead

My proposal is to add Many of his comments have been criticized as racist. after His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. The section on this has been added, and IMO this is the bare minimum to represent the wide criticism of bigotry he has received for comments, and of wide ranging and numerous incidents of comments perceived as racist as described in Donald Trump racial views (which honestly could be trebled in size). Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the article. So yeah.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd just as soon let things settle down a bit first. Not everything in the article needs to be in the Lede, and the racism stuffarticle is brand new. ~Awilley (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Brand new? The criticism of racism stretches back 40 years, being especially numerous for the past 2 years. The section is new, but it really should've been there months ago. The section is reasonable, and that shouldn't matter anyhow when determining what to include per DUE and NPOV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the section is growing and should be mentioned in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A mention of this is long overdue. zzz (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course it should be mentioned in the lead and it's not something new that needs to settle down. It something that has a 45 year history that began when Trump was sued (and he settled) for housing discrimination.- MrX 12:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Parts on accusations of "pandering to white nationalists" have been there too, for months. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump denies being racist, and has been accused of being racist. Do reliable sources say he IS racist? And listing accusations by political opponents and rivals in a BLP is a lot less notable than listing accusations by allies. Has Trump praised MLK and the Civil Rights movement? Has he touted the decreasing unemployment rate among minorities? If so, we need to include stuff like that for NPOV. He has often said that he wants immigration of skilled and highly-educated people, so what’s the evidence that those are code-words for “white”? You know, calling someone a “racist” is the worst kind of insult and (if it’s false) just as derogatory as anything Trump has been accused of saying. So we need to be careful. Okay? Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is why it is "criticized as being racist". Absolutely nowhere in the statement does it say he is racist. Paul Ryan has called one of his statements racist. We don't need to include those stuff about praising MLK because they are not prominent in reliable sources per DUE. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

When I asked whether reliable sources say he IS racist, I wasn’t implying that we are saying so, but rather that we should say whether reliable sources are saying so. As for how Trump and the White House defend themselves against these allegations, I think BLP almost always requires inclusion of info about denials even if reliable sources chose mostly to omit that stuff. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Can add a "which he denied" if needed..RS sources are using "racially charged". But the fact is true that "many of his comments have been criticized as racist" Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to add "which he denied". Sometimes he denies it; other times, like yesterday, he doesn't deny it. - MrX 12:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Rather than that, it's unecesary because a denial is unimportant and meaningless; if he didn't deny that'd be meaningful (in that case merely ignored the question) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I tried adding it with a summary saying that it is the world-wide top news story to see what would happen and it was deleted as WP:NOTNEWS. Gandydancer (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Unproven allegations are fine for the article body, but usually not the lead. If most RS's don't say he "IS" racist, then it's an unproven allegation. Still it's a serious allegation, and belongs in this BLP, just not in the lead, yet. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That's arbitrary and even incorrect. It's not an allegation; it's a 45 year history of well-documented observations and analysis that Trump's holds racist views. Of course it belongs in the lead in some form. There are few things that have been more prominently covered in sources about this subject. Also, there is no standard on Misplaced Pages, or Earth, that requires someone to be "proven' to be a racist in order to have their views described as racist.. There is also no Misplaced Pages policy or guideline for keeping properly sourced, widely-reported material out of the lead because its "unproven".- MrX 21:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Any..., where did I put in the lead that Trump was racist? I did not. I mentioned world-wide condemnation, which I would change to "attention" or some similar word. Gandydancer (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that you did. What I said is that until we can say in the lead based on reliable sources that he's a racist (which would be extremely notable), his alleged or actual views on race are not notable enough for the lead. They belong in the article body only. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"the most racist President since Woodrow Wilson,"

This should be added "CNN presidential historian Douglas Brinkley declared that Trump is "the most racist President since Woodrow Wilson," and suggested he might even be worse." https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brad-wilmouth/2018/01/12/brinkley-heart-stone-trump-most-racist-woodrow-wilson AHC300 (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Added to Racial views article IMO, atleast first, perhaps under other comments that he is racist, undue here I think Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Newsbusters is not a reliable source. Also, we should not write about individual opinions unless they are picked up by several other reliable sources. WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 14:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have noted that in the past few days several respected mainstream journalists have stated that POTUS' racist views are a core of his policy and persona. I don't think however that we can put this in the article citing individual journalists. I think we need to find a source that evaluates the range of RS discussion of POTUS' ongoing racist statements and policies and gives us a balanced NPOV statement we can rely on for DUE WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Meta-RS? That's new to me. Rather, the use of tertiary sources is very uncommon, I think. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That'd be a secondary source as the journalist statements will be a primary source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Then we'd need more than one, since no such meta analysis could be free of its own bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

But you wouldn't prefer a single secondary source's opinion, right? Because then we'd have all kinds of editor curated one-off opinions. <<The Kentucky Coiffure & Couture Meetup voted Pres. Trump the "Handsome Guy" award 2016.>> I think we need a secondary source that explicitly surveys the subject and the range of views by notable analysts. The views of a individual historians have a high variability SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Can’t find my racist measurement tool. When a bunch of presidential historians say this, that would be noteworthy. O3000 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Leave it out. We have only just now decided to reverse our previous consensus and add something about racist views to this biography. Emphasis on SOMETHING - we should not go from nothing at all to a huge exposition. Let's show a little balance and restraint, please. Our information on this subject should be kept focused and brief, giving it appropriate WP:WEIGHT for a biography article about a person about whom there is an enormous amount to say. As for this particular comment - an opinion from one historian, comparing Trump to a century-ago president about whose racist views modern readers know nothing - IMO that adds nothing of value to the article. If this comment gets picked up by secondary sources it could be put in the separate article/draft, but definitely not here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The previous status is not really relevant, since it is obvious we have done a poor job of properly representing the extent of coverage, even before the recent comments. The coverage of this topic spans 45 years. We can certainly discuss what level of detail we should include, but this cant be covered in one or two paragraphs while we devote reams to real estate transaction and TV shows. That would seriously violate WP:NPOV and it would seriously underserve our readers, not all of whom are in the 39.1%. I know it's unpleasant to think that the leader of the free world may be racist, but I will remind us all that Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCENSORED. - MrX 16:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ehh, the tv shows and real estate transactions are much more relevant to Trump's life, and the article shouldn't have more on what we deem important (racism) over what we deem unimportant (tv shows) just because we think that is important. 2 paragraphs approximately enough. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you believe that the tv shows and real estate transactions have received "much more" RS coverage than the racism? I mean, outside of People magazine and CNBC et al. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not much more perhaps, but this is also the biography of his life, and so things relating to things that have an impact on his life etc will be emphasized more - if the racism affected his life it'd be included more; the racism section is still decent length compared to the section on the Apprentice. And I am still arguing to include in the lead too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The parts about say the discrimination case that are more relevant to his life are also appropriately talked about elsewhere. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That's backwards. This is his biography. Details about his Presidency (<2% of his life) are best covered elsewhere. Content about his racial views which span more than 60% of his life whould be covered in the article about his life. This is it.- MrX 16:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

They're all relevant to Trump's life. Let's compare the extent of coverage in reliable source for real estate transactions with the the extent of coverage in reliable sources for his racial views and actions. That's how WP:WEIGHT is determined, not by how large the real estate transaction are or how many viewers the Apprentice had.- MrX 16:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think more criticism in general could be added throughout the article, but the section is reasonably of the correct size. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be unduly restrained, but we can't cherry-pick and rely on a single convenient but not demonstrably DUE WEIGHT source for a key point. In general, however, I think we've been too concerned about omitting central details concerning POTUS' public stands -- partly because of obstinate but empty objections here on talk by a small number of diehards. So I agree with MelanieN about this particular source and opinion -- let's leave Wilson out of this -- but I think we need to get busy and review this article's entire narrative of POTUS life and the principles to which he's dedicated himself. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What I was saying above is the section doesn't need expansion, but throughout the article more DUE criticism etc is needed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: The section is about as large as the Acting and public image trivia section, so no, I don't think it's the correct size. For one thing, the white supremacy material should probably be folded under racial views. We are missing the very important phenomenon of reliable sources and notable people outright saying that Trump is racist. That's important and needs to be covered. - MrX 16:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, should be added yeah. That white supremacy thing probably should be combined; I'll just note that not all the criticism should be quartered in one section. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There's been some good RS discussion recently of the long history and interrelated narratives of POTUS racist views and incitements. There's lots of significant material we need to read and evaluate. The result is likely to be a broad reworking of this article. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. By the way, there is other material that could be placed under racial view, such as the birther conspiracy. Of course we should leave a sentence or two in the existing sections for context.- MrX 17:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments about Trump by individuals are only significant if they receive wide coverage. It is dubious anyway. An article in Newsweek compares Trump to some recent incumbents. And don't forget the Willie Horton ad or that with his law and order and welfare reforms Clinton caused more harm to blacks than any president since Hayes ended Reconstruction. U.S. post-war foreign policy has also been seen by many as racist. TFD (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Which war? SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

―Mandruss ☎ 19:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This comment was apparently addressed to the associated press and picked up by some other sources like the hill. The source - https://www.apnews.com/bce2dc7a054e4541bc77e2971c1bde4e/Trump%27s-own-words-revive-debate-over-whether-he%27s-racist seems pretty useful, taking a broader look at his history. I've added the historian's analysis to the racial views article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Where to put the "racial views" coverage

I think it is inappropriate that we gave this section a level 2 header, as if it was a whole general category of information comparable to "business career" or "political career". IMO it should be a subsection under a more general area. MrX suggested folding the "white supremacy" material in; how about we do the opposite and fold this "racial views" material into the "white supremacy" section? --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

We should either put this in family and personal life or keep at level 2, don't lie and say it is something that just begun in his presidency (even if it does seem like it was only noticed then). --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO, the political image should be put into a level 2 header and racial views under that. It isn't at all appropriate in the campaign section along with the white nationalist support etc thing; merge in the public image parts from media career and create a decent section. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Most about how people see it as racist, criticism, how it changes his image. There are some actions, but those are mostly covered elsewhere; its mostly statements. So fit under a large "Image" section, covering presidential image and campaign image and pre-campaign image etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm with his highness, Emir of Misplaced Pages. There is no other current level two heading under which this belongs. The 45 year history of racial statements and actions spans more than 60% of Trump's life, and is relevant to his personal life, his business life, and his political life. - MrX 17:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I did see create a new level two heading called "Image", not put it under a current heading.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I also said it could be put in the family and personal life as another subsection. The only thing I am absolutely opposing is this the inclusion of it just in the presidential section. A specific number of years or percentage is not that important as long as due weight is given. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'Image' would be best, but it's not a bad either. Another possibility is 'Legacy', which I believe is used in a number of other biographies. 'Family and personal life' is probably not great because the racial views are also intertwined with his business and political careers.- MrX 17:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think legacy would work as that is after retirement esque (for obama etc) or after death. Not really sure racial views would fit under that either Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

An "Image" section could be a good addition since it spans his personal, business, and political life. And we all know that his image is of tremendous importance to him. Not "Legacy," which usually refers to the lasting impact a person has on the world - often after they have died or retired. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

As we all know, he has the best image folks. The best. Do think an Image section would be good; quite a lot his brand derives from that etc too - so important personally, to his business career, as being unpopular president etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Political views" or "Political views and image". Neither implies political office, we all have political views. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not "political"; a person's beliefs about race are more philosophy than politics. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Image is fine. It encompasses his political, personal, business, and popular culture image. Of course is racial views span at least three of these.- MrX 18:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Crooked Hillary has "Cultural and political image". Gandydancer (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Cultural" sounds a little off to me. There's nothing really cultural about placing full page newspaper ads calling for children to "be forced to suffer" .- MrX 18:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as a suggestion - just for comparison. Gandydancer (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I support covering all pre-presidency race stuff in chronological order in the respective chornological sections, but having a dedicated subsection in the presidency section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That is why I put 'Image' before 'Political career', but maybe it should be placed before 'Media career' or even 'Business career'. I'm not sure.- MrX 19:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

If people insist on having a dedicated section or subsection on race that covers his entire life, then all of the race-related stuff needs to be removed from the chronological sections and put into that dedicated section or subsection to avoid redundancy, and the dedicated section or subsection needs to be moved after the chronological sections, just like the Hillary Clinton article has "Cultural and political image" after the chronological sections. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Per my previous comment, most of the race-related material should be moved under 'Racial views', but we should leave a small amount in the respective sections for context. The 'Image' section chronologically start at 1973 (or 1963 according to one source I'm still researching), so the Image section actually belongs in a position parallel to 'Business career', or as close as we can get to that.- MrX 19:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Image" section chronologically ends in 2018, so can be placed immediately after the presidency section. Putting it in the middle of chronological sections puts a wrench into the chronology, because readers would read about his business career, then read about race stuff during his presidency, and then read about his campaign for president, which is nuts. Please follow the example at Hillary Clinton and many other featured BLPs by placing the image section after the chronological sections. Jamming it as high up in this BLP as possible is not apt. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You keep highlighting after for some reason. The Chronology is: Trump was born>raised>educated>started a business career>started a political career>became president. His image spans all but the first two of those, so the logical place to cover it is right before or right after the 'Business career' section. It doesn't belong at the end pf the article. We're not trying to hide it, are we?- MrX 20:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, for some mysterious reason I keep highlighting that. You seem to be insisting on discussing his relationship to racism as president before you discuss his campaign for president, which is out of sequence chronologically. Go look at featured articles like John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Neither John McCain or Hillary Clinton have a long history of racially-provocative remarks and actions that have been reported in hundreds (possibly thousands) of sources for 45 years, so that comparison is not useful.- MrX 20:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

They both have "Cultural and political image" sections that are put after the chronological sections of their BLP's, because putting them in the middle of the chronological sections would disrupt chronological order. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Putting the "Image" section at the end - after the "president" section - makes sense to me. It's a kind of summary-of-his-entire-life section, it has no chronology. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The exact same argument could be made for placing the section at the beginning, and it would have the additional benefit of summarizing his life before getting into the intricate details of his business and campaign. This might have to be decided with an RfC, because there's no clear guideline that would apply to an article like this.- MrX 01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There may not be a clear guideline, but there is some precedent. In addition to the two articles mentioned above there is also Ronald Reagan. All three have some version of an "image section" at the end of the article, and all three are Featured Articles which means they have undergone extensive review. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump is a unique case. In the case of Reagan, which was written well after he left office, the content is written in a 'Legacy' section as I mentioned above. If we included a couple of sentences in the lead that could properly summarize Trump's 45 years of racial remarks and actions, I could live with burying this way under the fold on page E-12. As it stands though, our reader should not be left in the dark. Eyes will glaze over as a reader loses interest around the hotels and golf courses.

I think we need a few other voices here to determine where we place the 'Image' section. Pinging recent editors for their thoughts on this: BullRangifer — Awilley — Casprings — Malerooster — SPECIFICO — Gandydancer — Galobtter — The Four Deuces — Emir of Misplaced Pages — Mandruss: AHC300 — Volunteer Marek — Steve Quinn — Objective3000 — PackMecEng — Scjessey — Sir Joseph — My very best wishes — Tataral — ChieftanTartarus: Signedzzz — Ad Orientem:- MrX 13:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Alert to new sub-section above: Talk:Donald Trump#Reboot and use lead from sub-article -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the image section should stay where it is now, just before the politics section. It is liable to get lost, at the end of the article, that is where I would expect to find unimportant details. zzz (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Either a subsection of "Family and personal life" or put it after the political sections. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

1. I boldly changed the header to "Public profile" -- "image" is a very broad term that does not specify the content of the section. 2. I think the Public Profile section would logically go between Family and Religion, as it relates to a lifelong aspect of his core that relates to most categories of his biography and it would be wrong to miscategorize it below as if it were a single event or as something related only to his business, his media career, or his political activities. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I endorse the edit by SPECIFICO. The title "public profile" and the current location in the article are appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I also endorse this edit. Paid for by CRASEY (Campaign to Review and Approve SPECIFICO's Edits, Y'all!)- MrX 14:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I endorse current version. This content does belong to "public profile" or "public image". My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I endorse the present edit. Excellent move and the article now reads very smoothly. Gandydancer (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur. It looks good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I endorse. Works for me. O3000 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Here, here er.. I endorse... Steve Quinn (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC) -- the edit makes sense - Steve Quinn (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

About the George Yancy quote

In the "racial views" section we currently have a quote from a historian, George Yancy, describing Trump's outlook as “white supremacist”. I think it should be deleted. We have multiple sources describing a consensus about his racial views; many say “racist,” none say “white supremacist” which is a different thing (“racial views” is how a person thinks; “white supremacist” is a political philosophy, favoring action to favor whites and disfavor other races). We have a section elsewhere in the article about white supremacy/white nationalism; introducing the term here seems jarringly out of place. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose we could cut to the chase and quote Yancy as saying “Is the president racist? I would say unequivocally yes to that". We should probably delete it though unless it is cited by a few other sources. Also, we should not get hung up on the scope under the section heading "Racial views" which is necessarily imprecise. The section really should be called History of racially-provocative remarks and racially-motivated actions, but that would be a little cumbersome. In my mind, tacit support of white supremacists is a component of racism. - MrX 18:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I also view the term racism pretty broadly. It is my impression that WP does as well... Gandydancer (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess my point was that there is no reason to quote Yancy at all - whether about white supremacy or racism. We should try for a more general view in this biography, not quote single individuals.--MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I did wonder about it... I do trust the impressions/suggestions of more experienced political editors...like you. Gandydancer (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree.- MrX 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Separate issue since you bring up the title: I was wondering if his anti-Muslim statements should be included in the article. Those are not specifically racist, reflecting religious prejudice rather than racial - but IMO the issue of Muslims is as much ethnic as religious in his mind. If we do include those comments and actions, would we need a broader title than "racial views", or is the term elastic enough to include anti-Muslim remarks as well? --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's an interesting and difficult question. Although I think that the anti-Muslim statements probably overlap with Trump's views of non-white people, my instinct is that we should not expand the scope of the article to include this. On the other hand, if we have several sources that clearly make the connection, then I would not object to including that material.- MrX 19:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we must err on the side of caution in this matter, but MelanieN, your thoughtful remarks above led me to consider the distinction you make. I must say that "white supremacist is the more objective term, since it refers to a practical and objective order. "Racist" on the other hand, relates to one's sentiment and needs an inference that would have to be very well sourced and documented. So just as an aside (for now) the tone of RS discussion over the past few days has been squarely stating that POTUS is a white supremacist and relating this to his entire public history -- starting with his fleeing the Sh@H@le borough of Queens for the environs of the 21 Club and Tiffany's in Manhattan, NY. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that, SPECIFICO, is that lots of Reliable Sources, especially recently, describe him or his language as racist. They do not describe him as white supremacist. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh. 😲 SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I did find this if it's helpful: "Is the President racist? I would say unequivocally yes to that," said Emory University professor George Yancy and the author of On Race: 34 Conversations In A Time Of Crisis. "Had he said one thing one time, we might say that was a slip of the tongue or it's an example of unconscious racial bias or it was a mistake," he added. "But I don't think this is a case of unconscious racial bias. I think this is a case of unabashed white supremacist ideas." Gandydancer (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect that any rigorous examination of the subject would reach that conclusion. I wasn't being facetious about his fleeing Queens. It's home to 100 nationalities and its per capita income is a fraction of Manhattan's. We do need rigorous and thoughtful views on the subject these could be notable newsmedia commentators, but more likely the best sources will be one step removed from the daily deadlines. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion notice: Stormy Daniels

Please weigh in at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, about inclusion of content about the Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels hush money allegation. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Full transcript of Stephanie Clifford's interview with In Touch was published today. Mapocathy (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be discussed on this page since it was alleged to be consensual, and the misconduct mentioned in that page is all non-consensual?Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a clear 7–2 consensus to omit from the other article. Barring RfC, that discussion appears to be concluded. I'll oppose in this article per WP:DUE and I suspect its chances here are close to zero. My guess is that it will fail DUE in any article. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. NOTNEWS unclear. little fact. SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Dartmouth research: Trump and fake news

I'm not sure where to put this. Maybe here, or maybe some other article. A recent study from Dartmouth is receiving attention in secondary sources:

Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign

People who supported Trump were far more likely to visit fake news websites — especially those that are pro-Trump — than Clinton supporters. Among Trump supporters, 40% read at least one article from a pro-Trump fake news website ... compared with only 15% of Clinton supporters.... Consumption of articles from pro-Clinton fake news websites was much lower, though also somewhat divided by candidate support. Clinton supporters were modestly more likely to have visited pro-Clinton fake news websites ... versus Trump supporters .... The differences by candidate preference that we observe in fake news website visits are even more pronounced when expressed in terms of the composition of the overall news diets of each group. Articles on fake news websites represented an average of 6.2% of the pages visited on sites that focused on news topics among Trump supporters versus 0.8% among Clinton supporters.

That's literally 8 times as much! That's very significant.

One secondary source interviewed one of the authors, Brendan Nyhan, and they discussed the findings. Here's an interesting quote:

NBC:

"It feels like there’s a connection between having an active portion of a party that’s prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you’re describing."

Nyhan:

"It’s worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it’s also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." (emphasis added)

BullRangifer (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be covered in United States presidential election, 2016 and Fake news. I'm not sure how it could fit into this article.- MrX 01:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason is because pro-clintonites get their fake news from mainstream news sites. עם ישראל חי 16:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MrX. Possible in those two articles; not in this BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

New Racial views section doesn't have Trump's racial views

Am I the only one who notices that the new "Racial views" section doesn't actually explain Trump's racial views? Instead, it's a list of racist or perceived as racist statements and actions. How about rename it to something else? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is called Donald Trump racial views, and that is presumably why it is called that. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The only way to know what his racial views are is by observation of his words and deeds. Reliable sources have been doing that for 45 years, and here we are. I guess we could consider adding that he once said "“I am the least racist person that you have ever met; I am the least racist person.", but I'm not sure that's worth the space.- MrX 20:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Misplaced Pages: If the article Donald Trump racial views doesn't cover Trump's racial views, then it's wrong, too.

How about renaming the section something like "Allegations of racism" or something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The current heading is far more neutral. The section is not about allegations; it's about a documented history of racially-motivated actions and racially-provocative remarks that have been exhaustively analyzed, and condemned internationally by 50+ nations.- MrX 21:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Do you think that the section explains Trump's racial views? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: No, nor does it attempt to explain his views. The section heading introduces the subject, but for brevity, it doesn't explain every angle. Technically, it should be History of racially-provocative remarks and actions perceived as racially-motivated, 1973 to present. That, of course, would be jarring, so instead we choose a short, somewhat vague heading that neutrally describes what is covered in the section.- MrX 22:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

AQfK, can I just check that you understand the difference between "racial" and "racist"? --Pete (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No, because it has nothing to do with my point. Read my OP if you don't know what I mean. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Your OP sparked my query. I'd just like to understand where you are coming from, in the interests of clarity. Are you able to answer my question? It's okay if you think both words mean the same thing, that gives an insight into your position, and we aren't talking at cross-purposes, which just leads to confusion. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the problem here really that the subject of the section is "racist views" not "racial views" but we are not confronting our uneasiness with such a definitive heading? SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think the problem is that we are conflating racial views and racist views. Trump's racism is borne out of his racialism, and both "isms" are receiving coverage in the sub article and the main BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are long strains of racialism in world cultures and, with respect to this article, Euro-American culture. Some of the racialist views in Western culture are now recognized as having been mistaken but not racist in the current sense. But racialist principles and speculations are still used to rationalize racist hate speech and public policy narratives. Trump, being a man of action and not particularly prone to inquiry or reflection, appears to speak from a long-discredited racialist POV while also espousing racist views and advocating racist policies. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually you just conflated racial with racialism. The former is a neutral term that simply means pertaining to race (his views on race) where the latter is belief system that for many is tantamount to racism (a racialist would support segregation, for example). GCG (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not following that one. Trump is a racialist. He projects characteristics on people based on racial categories. Much racist thinking is rationalized by false racialist pseudo-theories. SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My comment was targeted at scjessey. Trump is a racialist in your opinion (and mine too, FWIW), but since he would deny it (assuming he understood what it was), LABEL applies. GCG (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@GreatCaesarsGhost: WP:LABEL doesn't apply if there are plenty of reliable sources, and the guideline only says "avoid". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we are not confronting our uneasiness with WP:LABELing someone a racist. To some extent, we are euphemizing the topic.- MrX 22:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that wP:LABEL applies, particularly as this is a biography of a living person. TFD (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Quest, I don't understand what you want the article to do differently. It's already been explained that "Racial views", while imprecise, is preferred over a much longer and more complex title, something explaining that we can't know what is in his head so we are interpreting his words and actions. Are you complaining because we don't call him racist in Misplaced Pages's voice? We cite various sources calling him racist four times in this brief three-paragraph item. Isn't that enough for you? --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Even David Duke is not called a racist in WP's voice, and he's a lot less debatable. I think it's a reasonable application of WP:LABEL that we allow RS to use a word that we won't use ourselves. GCG (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump is not called a racist in WP's voice either, but nice try at a strawman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

VM, I don't know who you are accusing of strawman. I pointed out that we don't call him racist in WP's voice, and GCG agreed. I don't see any strawman argument there. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing in an edit conflict. MelanieN was probing for the root of Quest's concern and GCG replied with a logical point. Let's reserve the word "strawman" for actual logical fallacies. ~Awilley (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The straw man allegation was a straw man.  :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think we do or should call him a “racist” as per LABEL. I think we should also avoid the term racialism, except in quotes from RS. And yes, we are euphemizing the topic. But, that’s probably necessary until a larger majority of the population understands the inherent problems with racial judgements. OTOH, if we could name this anything we wanted, I’d prefer something like “xenophobic attitudes”. It goes beyond race. But that gets into a character formation diagnosis, which we can’t do. Just can’t think of a better title that doesn’t run afoul of LABEL. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• I just want to remind everyone that the latest statements attributed to Trump are coming from one source and is not corroborated by anyone else. In addition, Durbin has done this in the past, in 2013 he claimed negative statements against President Obama which was then denied by the White House and others present. We should not be using this statement as a major BLP issue. Sir Joseph 02:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

1. We have a source.
2. Others in the same meeting initially confirmed the statement.
3. Trump has not explicitly denied it, though his language over time trends that way.
4. The timing suggests construction of partisan narratives.
5. Attempts to discredit sources are an all too familiar political tactic. And from this particular direction, one that is almost mandatory.
6. There seems to be no definitive way of proving what language was or wasn't used, and given the he-said-she-said "discussion" over the KJU quote, it might be a matter of who is yelling the loudest.

Regardless of the above, the wording is now part of the Trump legend, given the extremely wide exposure. --Pete (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, but this doesn’t appear to be true. WaPo said that their reporting was based on several sources and Durbin only later verified this. O3000 (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

And Lindsey Graham tacitly confirmed it. Trump's denial is not credible given his record (see § False and misleading statements). Tom Cotton and David Perdue's inability to "recall" is not at all convincing.- MrX 02:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I just want to say seriously that I think many of the political articles at Misplaced Pages are shitholes, and there are also many countries where I would not want to live because they are too. That's why people want to leave them and come here. My two uses thus far in this comment of the word "shithole" are not at all racist. So context needs to be considered. And motives. What Trump thinks about all this stuff I know not, and neither does anyone at this talk page as far as I can tell. If we take all the most educated and skilled people from countries in dire need of them, it's not good for those countries; what does Trump think of that? Nor is it good for us to become a safety valve for those countries to release their most unwanted inhabitants; what does Trump think of that? I and most others believe that people who desperately want to come here from shithole countries should get some extra sympathy and consideration; what does Trump think of that? This BLP doesn't give the slightest clue. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't give the slightest clue because Trump hasn't given the slightest clue. I have a feeling I know what his answers would be to your three questions, but that would be OR. As for whether it was racist for him to apply that term to the countries he did, we leave that determination up to the Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is that Trump was complaining about the people who come from shitholes, not the shitholes themselves, which is why people immediately called it a racist thing to say. Saying it in a bipartisan meeting on immigration in the Oval Office was pretty stupid too. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ghostwriters in the sky

The lead now says, "With the help of ghostwriters, he published several books (most notably The Art of the Deal)...." But the name of Tony Schwartz appears on the cover of that book, was there someone else ghostwriting it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point. You're not a "ghostwriter" if you are credited. Maybe we should change it to co-authors. --MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Article and RS state "ghostwriter". SPECIFICO talk 04:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Most refer to Schwartz as a co-author, not a ghostwriter, so I have edited the lead accordingly. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Schwartz is variously described in RS as the co-author, author, or ghostwriter. Why "author"? Because we know who he is, unlike an unknown ghostwriter. In reality, "ghostwriter" is probably the most accurate term for all the other books attributed to Trump. He doesn't have a single "author gene" or ability in his body, and we know he likes to take credit for things done by other people, even "proclaiming" national holidays long since established by other Presidents. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Anywant, you can"t just insert your POV when the article corpus and the cited source say otherwise. C'mon. SPECIFICO talk 04:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Darn! I can't? I was just about to include all that. Shucks. This article by Jane Mayer is one of the best about the book and about Trump. A very interesting read. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The body of this BLP says, "Trump has published numerous books. His first published book in 1987 was Trump: The Art of the Deal, written by ghostwriter Tony Schwartz". The footnote is "Mayer, Jane (July 25, 2016). "Donald Trump's Ghostwriter Tells All". The New Yorker. Retrieved June 19, 2017." Per dictionary.com a ghostwriter is “a person who writes one or numerous speeches, books, articles, etc., for another person who is named as or presumed to be the author.”

Schwartz is named on the cover of the book, and he's described as co-author by CNN, The Hill, MSNBC, People, Huffpo, The Independent, BBC, and many more. The word "co-author" was removed from this lead during the past two days, and there is no consensus to remove it, so I intend to put it back per DS. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

When secondary sources inaccurately represent primary sources, we should accept the primary source. In this case, it is apparent that the secondary source is incorrect about the ghostwriter, because the book clearly credits him as a co-author. TFD (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That's the oppose of what we do. We don't do our own interpretation of primary sources - we rely on secondary sources to do that interpretation. According to our article on ghostwriter (very trustworthily doesn't have sources): In some cases, ghostwriters are allowed to share credit. For example, a common method is to put the client/author's name on a book cover as the main byline (by Author's Name) and then to put the ghostwriter's name underneath it (as told to Ghostwriter's Name). Sometimes this is done in lieu of pay or in order to decrease the amount of payment to the book ghostwriter for whom the credit has its own intrinsic value. Also, the ghostwriter can be cited as a coauthor of a book, or listed in the movie or film credits when having ghostwritten the script or screenplay for a film production.

But it does appear that sources are mixed on whether Schwartz was a ghostwriter. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, and the ratio of mixing matters. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Anywant, you just reinserted your POV without demonstrating consensus here on talk. Please undo yourself. RS tell us overwhelmingly that these books have been written by ghostwriters, and your insinuation about citing Misplaced Pages as a reference is an especially lame straw man. This article has the consensus requirement and the onus is on you for the edit you just made. Claiming the opposite in your edit summary doesn't cut it. Don't try to tell us that, contrary to the RS citation, POTUS sat down and authored half a dozen thick books. That's wildass OR, as I would have thought you'd know. Pinging @Galobtter, BullRangifer, MelanieN, Anythingyouwant, and The Four Deuces: SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Haven't we been through this a million times? I don't need consensus to restore longstanding content, if there's no consensus to remove it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Longstanding content is treated differently under discretionary sanctions than new content; the sanctions are meant to favor the status quo and stabilize the article, not to let anyone delete whatever longstanding info they want to delete even if there is no consensus to delete it. As one admin put it: “If you REMOVE longstanding content from that article, that removal is an ‘edit’ within the meaning of this rule, and if someone reinstates the longstanding wording, you must not revert (remove it again) without consensus.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Now you're bobbing and weaving. You bring in 3 random cherrypicked sources to support the ludicrous claim that POTUS is an author and then you contradict your POV in the article by saying that the ghostwriter is sometimes called a ghostwriter? It was almost better when you were flatly disregarding the excellent citation that was there before you scrambled to cover your denial of the reference. Meanwhile, there is no consensus for this encyclopedia to claim that POTUS wrote or co-wrote six lengthy books. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant is correct as to process. The lead has said "co-authored" since 11 December, so a disputed removal requires consensus. Perhaps now we can focus on content and not on contributors. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have raised a content and sourcing issue. There's no good reason to rewrite text to go against what's in the cited RS (New Yorker/Mayer) and then hastily cobble together some other random cherrypicked stuff when somebody -- gee -- noticed that the article text is no longer verified WP:V by the cited source. They're ghostwritten books. That's what bigtime busy action-oriented executives like POTUS do. They hire ghostwriters -- the best -- and cut them in for a big incentive so they have a stake in the success of the book. Why is this being treated like some kind of disgrace that must be concealed at all cost??? Using a ghostwriter just shows that he had better things to do with his time than try to write a book! #Executive #valuabletime SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Schwartz is named on the cover of the book, and he's described as co-author by CNN, The Hill, MSNBC, People, Huffpo, The Independent, BBC, and many more. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll generally take a position opposite an editor who points to one cited source as effectively end-of-discussion and dismisses three other cited sources as cherry-picking. That's what I'd call an anti-argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, let's stick to the facts here. The text was changed without any alternative source that contradicted the excellent recent New Yorker citation. OK. Only after I pointed out that the edit had departed from the cited source did the other 3 sources suddenly appear. And you still would need to address whether those other 3 are representative of the weight of the RS reporting on this (hint: they're not) or whether they were just super quickie cherrypicks to silence a discussion about an edit that denied the RS reference. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Editors may improve citations at any time, even during a discussion, and they should be able to do so without being accused of gaming. Your AGF needs a tune-up, especially with regard to your longtime nemesis Anythingyouwant. (hint: they're not) - Fine. Prove it. You're the editor fighting for a change to lomngstanding content, so the burden is on you. Exsqueeze me if I don't just take your word for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your personal fantasies about other editors are not welcome. Anywant and I get along great. She just shouldn't be changing the text so that it contradicts the source. If you disagree, I suggest you bone up on the 5 pillars. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I’ll come out of the closet a little bit, and say that I’m a he. (I hope that doesn’t spoil anyone’s fantasies.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss thought you had a Fatal Attraction thing going with one of the boys here. #shucks. SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Administrator note It may not seem like it to any of the members in this heated discussion, but to me it looks like you are all working towards the same goal. Please try to stay away from commenting on your fellow editors, and please just try to advance these discussions further by using sourcing and logic based in our policies. We all want this article to be as accurate as it possibly can be, even if the topic can carry partisan emotions at times. Let's try not to get angry at each other just because we might be angry about any particular idea. I can assure you, I wouldn't be letting anyone edit here if I thought their intent was nefarious or to push their own POV. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

HuffPost, Independent Journal Review, Salon, The Independent, ABC News, PBS, and the others linked above. Five days earlier Mayer herself used both words in The New Yorker.
There is no clear RS preference for either word regarding Schwartz and Deal, so I have no problem with using the dictionary as a reliable source for vocabulary for the purposes of the lead, while giving a nod to "ghostwriter" in the Books section. I support current status quo. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

2000 presidential campaign

The previous section (and mentions in the lede) of his 2000 presidential campaign has been removed. This is highly unusual for an American political page. Off the top of my head,, compare Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, who have sections and mentions for their unsuccessful presidential campaigns. Plumber (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The 2000 events are still mentioned in the article body, in the second paragraph of the "Political career up to 2015" section. This aborted campaign has not been deemed significant enough for inclusion in the lede. Also, Reagan and Nixon were seasoned politicians by the time they ran for President, and they did so in the primaries of a major party. — JFG 23:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Part of Trump's position is that he is a fresh start, an anti-politician, as opposed to the tired old hacks who have spent years in the Senate etc. But the fact is that he has had several goes at the job. I think that is indicative of the contradictions in his presidency. Not to mention that he recently claimed that he won on his first try, and removing the mention from the lede smacks of legitimising this false claim. --Pete (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but all he did was form an exploratory committee in 2000, dropped out when they didn't agree to hand him the nom on a platter, and eventually "won" two states in the Reform party primary post-dropout. It is really a footnote in his biography, rather than a notable milestone moment, so I think not being in the lede is a good idea. ValarianB (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So you favour legitimising his claim that he won on his first go? --Pete (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Since we have a substantial article on Trump's 2000 campaign, I am surprised it is given very little attention in this BLP. It is briefly mentioned in "Political career up to 2015", but the relevant article doesn't even get a link where you would expect to find it (although it is linked to in the "popular culture" section and the template at the foot of the article). Trump's claim he won on his first go is obviously a lie, and it sure seems as if this article is doing a pretty good job of backing that falsehood up. I do not think it rises to the importance of being mentioned in the lede, but it is currently given short shrift in the body of the article. Trump's claims that he is "not a politician" have also been similarly backed up by the article, particularly with the tortured construction of the opening sentences of the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need the screen cap of a tweet in the Social media section?

References

1. http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/stormy-daniels-full-interview-151788
2. Lucey, Catherine (July 1, 2017). "In tweet blitz, President Trump defends social media use". KIRO 7. Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 2, 2017. Retrieved July 4, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

A screen captured image of a Tweet doesn't seem to convey much encyclopedic information. Is it really worth the 786 characters it takes up in the article? - MrX 13:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Trump- 'Modern Day Presidential'.png --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The image was deleted. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it is "worth" the characters it takes up. How would one calculate that? But it illustrates the president's colloquial approach to speech, which in my opinion is the defining characteristic of the man. This is seen in what is said as well as the means by which it is said—the Twitter account makes for presidential communications that are very frequent and often on very minor details of the duties of his office. Additionally, the sloganeering embodied in "make America great again" via a Twitter feed well-illustrates the crassness that many commentators observe in the current American presidency. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't need it. And there may be better examples anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not see how an image of words conveys anything of value to the reader. ValarianB (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The "image of words" is more direct than our description of it could ever be. It is easier to present the "image of words" than it would be to find alternative words to describe the "image of words" that is depicted. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd say a image wouldn't be as useful as, "Trump responded to criticism of his twitter usage with "..."" The image doesn't connect with the paragraph clearly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No. A picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words, not 16. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It couldn't be more on-topic. It is an illustration of Trump addressing his use of social media. What have we chosen to title that section? You guessed it—Social media.
The criticism is correct that this is just an image of words, but as an image of words it breaks up the otherwise sea of words, and its ability to communicate is not compromised by it being merely an image. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You simply describe it using, well, words. How hard is this to understand? Using actual words rather than a screenshot of a tweet. ValarianB (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

First name of Trump's attorney

This was one of the items being edit warred over. Let’s work it out. The article originally had it as Sheri Dillon. User:TheValeyard twice changed it to Sherri Dillon. User:Anthony22 twice changed it back it to Sheri Dillon, citing romper.com Romper.com does not appear to be a reliable source; more of a celebrity gossip blog. However, multiple other sources spell it Sheri so that is clearly what we should use. I will add a better reference and the issue should be settled. See, folks, this is how to resolve differences of opinion: bring it to the talk page. Don’t just keep reverting each other, particularly not at an article under DS, which can very quickly lead to sanctions. If you have other unresolved disagreements, you are expected to bring them here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't catch the double-R, was mainly focused on the needless verbiage. TheValeyard (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Could we just remove the first name. The surname is not used elsewhere and they are not that public a figure. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. Removing the first name would leave "His attorney Dillon said that...". We don't do that unless the full name has previously been given. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually that was what I was suggesting, but now that I see it being used in a sentence it doesn't sound as good an idea as I thought. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's contrary to the first 7 words at MOS:SURNAME. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump health

About this edit, Ekem I don't think a list of medications is really necessary; already mentioned statins lowering cholestrol before and the rest doesn't seem all that important.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not even sure that we need to include anything about his annual physical. It seems very mundane.- MrX 🖋 12:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Same here, actually removed all the health stuff a while back except for the alcohol and marijuana part; was reverted. Still, needs just a one-two sentence summary atmost IMO - I wrote "In 2016, Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, issued a medical report that showed Trump's blood pressure and liver and thyroid function to be in normal ranges. It also showed that he is overweight and takes statins to lower his cholesterol." some time ago which was enough; the content of these two reports which differ slightly can be summarized in that much text. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I figured everyone would be on board. With all the talk on this page about his mental health we finally have a doctor that examined it and reported on it. Given the previous and on going coverage of his health a small section is just fine. PackMecEng (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps just that part from the physical, but it needs trimming. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The mental health screening is probably the only meaningful information. We might want to note why its meaningful.- MrX 🖋 13:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That would go against all previous discussions about his mental health. PackMecEng (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

These sources were available after that discussion and a briefing to members of Congress seems pretty significant in my view. In any case, I don't think we should discuss his mental health screening without giving some context.- MrX 🖋 14:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Haven't been paying too much attention to those discussion, but what about something like "Jackson said that Trump achieved a perfect score on the cognitive test; this was in the midst of media speculation on his mental health"? assuming can find sources to connect the two to not be SYNTH Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds decent, I could probably go for that. PackMecEng (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That might work, But wasn't it screening, not a test?- MrX 🖋 14:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Dunno, copied that first part from this article :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, I don't see any sources at first blush saying screening. PackMecEng (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

CNN made a point of distinguishing between test and screening for some reason, but I see that WaPo calls it test so that works for me.- MrX 🖋 14:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I mean we can just specify the actual test, the Montreal_Cognitive_Assessment Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah kind of muddy on screening or test after looking at our article on it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think a very short item could be used, but I’m not sure where in the article. Maybe under “presidency”. (Never mind, I see we have a "health" section under "personal".) Something like “During his annual physical in January 2018, Trump requested the White House physician to give him a cognitive screening test, which he passed with a perfect score of 30 out of 30.” If we’re going to mention this at all, I think it’s important to mention that it was at Trump’s request. And I wouldn’t use it as a back-door way of bringing in the media speculation about his mental health. --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Considering that apparently Trump specifically asked for and did the test to want to put that speculation to bed, I don't see it as a big leap and as long as we don't mention the actual speculation I don't see large issues in it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree to mention both the test and the context; no prior president ever asked for an assessment of their mental health, but no prior president was so furiously accused of being a lunatic. — JFG 14:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with any mention of this so-called cognitive function test. Unless we have third party description as to the nature of the test and what it is designed to diagnose and its reliability, I see this as misleading and unencyclopedic. It could have been the test they give Air Force pilots to see whether they can hear the radio after sleep deprivation for all we know. We don't know that this was a test for early-stage dementia and ADD. But those are the concerns POTUS's inspires in the press and inner circle. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: That's a deflection and a misrepresentation of widespread RS discussion of concerns about POTUS mental condition accross the political spectrum. "Lunatic" is very cute but I don't see any RS stating he bays at the moon. There's a specific concern as to his attention span, which observers claim has deteriorated, there's concern about his ability to absorb new information, there's concern about his memory, there's concern that he's losing touch with his personal relationships. These are all widely repoprted in RS. As to your assertion that no other president elicited such concerns, that is false. Reagan is now widely acknowledged to have been in dementia for at least the last 4 of his 8 years in office. Nixon was a raving drunk toward the end as his presidency unraveled. In both cases, this was concealed for years after the fact. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Your usual attention to detail seems to be on pause today. Re:"lunatic" I added a smiley; I did not state that RS were making such an outrageous claim... although you would surely admit that coverage of this president often reads "Trump is dangerously out of his mind; won't somebody take away his nuclear button?" Re:concerns about Trump's cognition, they have been totally refuted by Dr. Jackson in 56 minutes of press conference, in which he explained that in his daily interactions with him, he perceived Trump as "very sharp", and that he would not have recommended conducting any kind of cognitive assessment, were it not for the president's request. Re:Reagan and others, I'm well aware of those cases, but you did not read my comments accurately: I did not "assert that no other president elicited such concerns", I wrote that "no prior president ever asked for an assessment of their mental health". But thanks for the straws. — JFG 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It was wikilinked by PackMecEng to Montreal_Cognitive_Assessment. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I will have a looksee. Do we have 3rd party comment as to the suitability and reliability of that metric? SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah just search; IIRC some were saying it does not measure early-stage dementia however the physician said that he was monitoring trump daily and didn't find any signs of that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There are starting to be 3rd party reports that will help us put this in proper context and perspective. I do think it's good news that POTUS perfect score shows he knows the difference between rhino and an elephant, but boasting about the perfect score on the dementia thing could be a sign of cognitive impairment. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for us to do our own Original Research about the validity or applicability of this particular mental status examination, or to try to find some third party commentary dismissing the test or result. Our job is to report why the doctor did a cognitive evaluation, what examination was used (that's a good idea), and what the result was. Period. --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You removed the one part of the whole health section that almost everyone agree has weight here. What part of it does not make sense to you? PackMecEng (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Right: the mental health test is the topic that attracted most attention from RS. Must restore, Spec, please self-revert. — JFG 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The MoCA is an extremely low bar to pass. I don't think it is particularly important, and I certainly don't think we need to flatter Trump with the use of the word "perfect" in the text. If we must have it, "passed" is sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This is an absolutely meaningless statement -- He scored 30/30 on some "test". MelanieN this has nothing to do with Original Research and who said anything about "dismissing the test result"? We need to hear from acknowledged authorities about the significance of this Montreal test. I am sure that within a week there will be loads of thoughtful information and comments that will enable us to present a properly contextualized and NPOV mention if indeed it then appears to be DUE WEIGHT. Just because it's quantified and you know that 30/30 = 1.00 do you think there's any information in the statistic? SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Look. We have had a consensus here not to use “armchair psychiatry” type comments about Trump’s mental health. We have insisted that such comments could only come from someone who has actually examined him. Well, now we have a report from someone who has actually examined him. That report has been widely reported by Reliable Sources. That report, and only that, is what we should put in the article. Even if some of us personally dislike it or disagree with it. Even if some individual third parties quibble about the type or meaning of the test. We have guidelines to follow here, and we should follow them. Not go shopping around looking for “acknowledged authorities” to criticize the test. Not unless criticism of the test becomes an issue as widely reported as the test results themselves. If that happens, then “within a week” as you say we can revisit the topic. In the meantime, please note that our own WP article says the assessment, which you sneeringly dismiss as "some "test" " and "an absolutely meaningless statement", is widely used and has been validated as a test of mild cognitive impairment. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, it's not helping to suggest this has to do with editors' opinions. I'm a scientist. You'll find me repeatedly saying more or less the same thing on diverse subjects relating to complex technical measurements. None of us who are not MDs and Psychologists knows what the significance of this statistic may be. Neither do mainstream journalists or their readers. That's why, in cases like this, we see journalists seeking out the most qualified among acknowledged mainstream experts to explain and contextualize the statistic. Shopping for "acknowledged authorities" is the core of WP editing. I don't understand why that would concern you, let alone get you so upset? SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me just say that "he scored 30/30 on some (scarequotes) "test" " does not sound much like a scientific reaction. And "boasting about the perfect score on the dementia thing could be a sign of cognitive impairment" sounds like your opinion, not a research-based conclusion or Reliable Source quote. BTW note that the doctor based his conclusion not just on the test, but also on daily observation of the patient - which according to the Vox source you linked is a more reliable indicator of cognitive impairment than any test. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

And BTW, I have no POV about POTUS or his cognitive condition. And you don't see me jumping on the bandwagon here to label him a sex molester or to label him a racist, or any of the other things you might expect to see if I were motivated by animus toward POTUS. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

So what is your proposal for the addition of this information? PackMecEng (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean the mental test POTUS requested? I don't see that's significant. The coverage of it sets it in the context of the Michael Wolff book furor, but that too is fraught with content and sourcing problems. RS tell us Trump requested the test, which the MD would not otherwise have administered, in order to have some boasting rights. Remember nothing is disclosed w/o a President's consent. Maybe he took a Myers-Briggs profile and came out with some weird result we'll never see. Who knows? At any rate as editors we need to be careful not to give undue weight to recent "news" that originates from self-interest. I haven't looked far and wide yet, but from what I see in the Washington Post, the test does not really relate to the concerns that folks are voicing and that it would be highly significant if they were refuted. Do you think this test is a noteworthy fact or event in the life of Trump? I don't see any source describing it as such. Seems to me more like fast-fading recentism like last week's tweets or the perfect piece of chocolate cake he had while bombing Afghanistan. Remember that? Is it in the article? Seems about the same to me. SPECIFICO talk 03:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the vast amounts of previous discussion on this topic in the talk page history and the constant discussion for months from RS about his mental health and that we have a dedicated health section with this easily applying I must disagree with your assessment. Heck we even have a current condenses at the top of the page dealing with how we would go about including this very type of material. That coupled with several editors above asking that it be reinstated I would like to ask that you restore the material. PackMecEng (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks -- that helps me understand your view a bit better, I think. I do not think that this test, requested by POTUS, has anything to do with the general concern over what critics call a personality disorder, memory problems, ignorance -- all the things that the originator of this screening test says his metric does not address. It's not as if this exercise settles anything with respect to the issue, so whatever discussion of his emotional or mental quirks previously occurred here, I do not believe any RS is stating that all the fears and doubts have been resolved or even addressed by this test. I found the piece by Dana Milbank interesting. Should we put in the article that he's got the great Trump genes and he would live to be 200 if only...? Actually I think the yearly updates on his health are more suitable for the Presidency of DT article, because presidents do get these annual checkups. I don't think most ordinary bios go into annual detail about the subjects' livers. SPECIFICO talk 04:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. The health section is and should remain brief, we agree on that. Given the weight of RS coverage, a short mention of the cognition test is warranted, per WP:DUE. Adding back a sentence without the "perfect score" note, per Scjessey. — JFG 07:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I just notice that this edit also inserted a new sentence giving a personal opinion of Jackson that POTUS is "sharp" -- this is not a professional or medical opinion, it goes beyond any consensus here. It insinuates POV into the article. I'm very disappointed that this was tacked on without disclosure here. Busy folks like me take comments at face value and I very well might never have checked the article text to see this gratuitous addition. I also note that the cited source for this add-on POV was the live coverage of the extended press conference referenced by Dana Milbank here . Live streamed play by play is about as far as WP editors could get from WP:DUE edit the summary claimed. I have reverted it. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Girther movement

An article entitled Girther movement has been created and being considered for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Girther movement. Is it perhaps time for a spin-off of the health section? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

We have just a few lines about Trump's health here; not enough material to spin off. And Girther movement, while a cute novelty name, doesn't seem encyclopedic at all. — JFG 16:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is much to write about Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

God no. Somebody invents a cute pun and it immediately gets an article? This shouldn't even ben in this article, much less have an article of its own. This is the kind of thing that gives Misplaced Pages a bad name. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I say no as well, but really User:MelanieN pathetic puns are not what give Misplaced Pages a bad name. What truly makes Misplaced Pages look bad is that we have all these wonderful policies about neutrality and preserving reliably-sourced information but hardly the slightest enforcement mechanism when a majority of editors at an article want to elevate partisanship above those policies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What gives Misplaced Pages a bad name is the appearance that any time anyone criticizes Trump or he says something controversial, somebody immediately (within hours) writes a new article about it. At most - at MOST - such things should be added to an existing article, and only split off into a standalone article if they gain enough weight for it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe both give Misplaced Pages a bad name. While way meta, I definitely agree with Any that there is no mechanism for policy enforcement and the current system presumes incorrectly that a majority of editors who can type policy TLAs can't be wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

We have been debating Trump's racism for years. (SeeTalk:Donald Trump/Archive 2#Use of the word "racism"). This latest news flurry was just the tipping point in a 45 year history. What really harms Misplaced Pages is the blatant obstruction of material by partisans on all sides, when that material doesn't agree with personally held views. It's particularly bad when it's compounded with misrepresenting sources, misrepresenting policies, gaming the system, sock puppetry, meat puppetry, fake retirements, and outright lying.- MrX 🖋 18:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

How do "fake retirements" have the slightest thing to do with this? I've retired a few times, and later come back. AFAIK, that doesn't have the slightest effect on article content. Just because you haven't retired doesn't mean not retiring is some immense virtue, does it? As far as this article is concerned, we have included race-related incidents in chronological order. Many BLPs at Misplaced Pages (like many biographical books) are written with chronology in mind, and it's no sin to favor a chronological BLP structure over a topic-based structure. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Fake retirements tend to be manipulative.- MrX 🖋 19:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That’s about threatening to leave. It’s not about simply leaving without previous threats, and then later returning to the chagrin of User:MrX. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Back to your original suggestion, Emir: The time may come for creating an article called "Health of Donald Trump". But that will only be if his health becomes a major issue to his biography or his presidency. We aren't even close to that point yet. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I looked to see if there are other “health of” articles about currently living people. I found none. The closest thing was Health of Ronald Reagan which is a redirect to his main article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Challenges to "excellent health"

The New York Times, yesterday: Trump's Physical Revealed Serious Heart Concerns, Outside Experts Say

Dr. David Maron, director of preventive cardiology at Stanford University’s medical school: "Asked if Mr. Trump is in perfect health, Dr. Maron offered a blunt reply: 'God, no.'"

Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist at the Scripps Research Institute: "I would never use the words 'excellent health.' How you could take these indices and say excellent health? That is completely contradicted."

And some unspecified number of unnamed physicians with similar sentiments.

These are not "armchair diagnoses"; these doctors have access to the same test results as do Jackson and the rest of the world, and they are speaking only to those results, so Jackson's opinion is no more authoritative. It might even be said that two specialists in cardiology are more authoritative than one generalist in these matters.

I also don't think we can completely ignore the reality that, given Trump's history, Jackson no doubt understood that his continued employment at the White House might depend on his sugar-coating his evaluation. Per Physician to the President#Selection of the physician, "The White House Physician is often selected personally by the President...".

It seems to me that, if we include Jackson's determination of "excellent health", policy requires one short sentence about the direct contradictions to that determination. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Support mention of this, but without the WP:OR about the sugar-coating. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no proposal to say anything about the sugar-coating in the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm repeating the links I offered in the cognition test section above: Because its my nature to err on the side of moderation and caution, I did not add my personal take on this, which Mandruss in part confirmed: The doctor's duty is to care for his patient, and we can be confident that he did that. Like other government employees who come in contact with POTUS, RS have speculated that the doctor may have concluded that flattery and sycophantic bluster is part of how to ensure a working relationship with POTUS. Several broadcast and print commentators have noted that the doctor appeared to be misrepresenting POTUS health condition, sometimes in words similar to the famous Dr. Bornstein of NYC. These doctors are no doubt dedicated to their duties, but a little exaggeration or fib in public discourse doesn't compromise POTUS medical care and may even support it by cementing their relationship with their patient.

In terms of our repsonsibility as editors however, we nearly fell into the trap of immediately parroting White House talking point recentism and putting it in the article. Where RS explain how to separate the facts from the promotional presentation and talking points, we should reflect the facts, not the talking points. We went to a lot of trouble to get to that point with statements from Spicer, Conway, Hubakee-Sanders et al, and RS are now explaining that even this military MD needs the same scrutiny. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: For the record, Jackson served under several prior presidents, and was personally appointed as head physician by Barack Obama. I don't think it's fair to insinuate partisanship on his part. — JFG 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: - I'm not insinuating (is that your best choice of word?) partisanship. I'm saying that he may very well give a higher priority to holding onto his prestigious position than to complete candor with the press and public. This is not covered by his Hippocratic Oath. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

We should not censor content that is reported in the reliable sources because someone may have not completed candor with the press and the public. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Who is proposing censoring what content? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You are not insinuating, but some commenters cited by RS are, and I'm not sure an encyclopedia should give any weight to their opinions (WP:FALSEBALANCE comes to mind). — JFG 04:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Links to articles insinuating "partisanshp"? Otherwise this is nonsense deflection. SPECIFICO talk 04:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: What on earth do those commenters have to do with this question? Drs. Maron and Topol are not insinuating partisanship, they are offering very educated medical opinions that these test results do not indicate "excellent health". That's all they are saying as far as I know, and their views and those of the others who agree with them are all I propose to represent in the one short sentence. Surely you're not claiming that FALSEBALANCE applies to these statements; their views are neither minority nor extraordinary.
"All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Have we really become so disconnected from policy that we will dismiss these prominent doctors because half the world hates Donald Trump? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

After 2 years of editing articles about Trump and his campaign, haven't we learned to follow RS presentations? As Dana Milbank and others have detailed with great insight, those around Trump and his organization appear to sustain their relationships with him by indulging his ego where it does not directly compromise their work or legal responsibilities. We've repeatedly read about this -- Gen'l Kelly, Gary Cohn, many US Senators, et al. Mandruss has stated this very clearly. Nobody would accuse the MD of having violated his Hippocratic Oath (which POTUS sucessfully differentiated from the Rhinoceros Oath on the Montreal test 😲). But the unprecedented over-the-top press session afterward has convincingly been identified by notable commentators as Trump-thump rather than medical information. If it's not information, it's not censoring information. (Not that it is "censoring" anything else, either.) SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

To be crystal clear, I'm not advocating "censoring" "excellent health", I'm advocating adding the very legitimate counterpoint. Per policy. I'm no longer clear what you're advocating, SPEC. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Other comments

• Also the famed Dr. Gupta on CNN and various ones on broadcast news. And there was the bit this morning where right-leaning Republican Joe Scarborough compared his own height and weight to the figures the MD presented and sneered. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  
• Experts interviewed by NY Times concerning cardiac and other risk factors: Trump Heart Health and Cholesterol.
  
• Newsweek: Trump's Dangerous weight and skyrocketing cholesterol SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Specific proposal 1

Propose adding the sentence bolded below, shown in context with the current content. Please read the discussion at #Challenges to "excellent health" before !voting.

In January 2018, Trump was examined by White House physician Ronny Jackson, who deemed him in excellent health, although his weight and cholesterol level were higher than recommended. A cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues. Several prominent physicians who have not examined Trump said that his test results do not indicate excellent health. Trump requested to undergo a cognition test, and passed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment with a score of 30/30.

• Support as proposer, per WP:NPOV. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per nomination. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Specific proposal 1A

Same as above with a slight modification: Several prominent physicians who have not examined Trump have commented that his weight, lifestyle, and test results do not indicate excellent health.

• Support as proposer. The test results are the least of it. Everyone is pointing out that a 71 year old man who is overweight, does not exercise, and has a poor diet is almost by definition not in "excellent health". --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per proposer and WP:NPOV. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Instead of "who have not examined Trump" -- which will sound to our readers as if they're casual opinions -- I would use "who reviewed the test data". It's not merely what MelanieN says, because most folks would say he doesn't appear to be healthy, but it is based on specific metrics that are used to screen for disease. And remember that none of these metrics is equivalent to saying he's got 3 weeks to live. We're talking about whether he has 10% or 20% chance of a crisis event. That's evident from the extensive data that was released and doesn't require physically being in the room. Nobody is saying he has pleurisy, COPD, angel-breath, or anything else. So they are not doing armchair diagnosis -- they are just telling the press what any well-informed MD knows but reporters and the general public don't. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No, because it's not just the "test data" that they are basing their opinions on. They are looking at the entire picture. They are saying that a person who is overweight, has a poor diet, does not exercise, AND has certain test data cannot be described as being in excellent health. As for those "test metrics," the calcium level has been debunked as an indicator of cardiac health; his cholesterol is high but his dosage has been increased so that will likely come down; what other "test data" are you talking about? We do need to make it clear that these other doctors have not examined Trump. But they are evaluating ALL of the publicly available information, not just test results. In fact no responsible clinician would decide on the state of a patient's health based solely on lab results with no other information available. --MelanieN (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I wonder if we should say "who have not personally examined Trump". --MelanieN (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support needs to be specified that they have not examined. Lorstaking (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Needs tweak "who have not examined..." sounds like they have no basis for their assessment. The key points are 1. They are not diagnosing disease, which is what the Goldwater principle deals with. They're just pointing out very fundamental flaws in the White House press narrative. 2. They have all the same data Jackson had. 3. They are professionals speaking in that capacity and we should not suggest they make unwarranted or casual statements. 4. Nobody is suggesting that in his private medical care of POTUS, Dr. Jackson is not exercising all due concern and care, or even that Jackson doesn't know perfectly well that the identified risk factors are alarming and need to be addressed. In fact, based on the disclosed prescription and care regimen, Jackson's professional assessment appears to be entirely consistent with the commentators in NYTimes, WaPo and elsewhere. Jackson is doing exactly what an MD would do with a patient with elevated risks. The comments are about the spin not the medical treatment. No pundit suggested 24 mg instead of 20 mg of Crestor. That would be inappropriate w/o examining the patient. But the RS comments are more about Dr. Jackson, and certainly are not about diagnosis -- per Goldwater rule. They're about risk and public statements, and the comments are framed as such. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Specific proposal 2

Thanks Mandruss. Please consider the following amendments, before we get lots of comments here

In January 2018, Trump was examined by White House physician Ronny Jackson, who deemed him in excellent health, although his weight and cholesterol level were higher than recommended. A cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues. This assessment was disputed by several prominent physicians who commented based upon their reviews of the test results. They stated that the data raised serious concerns about Trump's cardiac health. Trump requested to undergo a cognition test and passed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment with a score of 30/30.

SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with alternative proposals. Can I support both? The main thing for me is to get the opposing view into the article; the precise form is secondary. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NPOV. While I said "one short sentence" multiple times in the discussion, this gives roughly equal space to each view. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per MelanieN below, who cited information I was not aware of. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Too detailed and wordy for what only one source says about one small event in Trumps life. Would support a more detailed version perhaps in another page or a page dedicated to the health of Trump. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per NPOV with a bit more information as to expert impartial review. Somehow if we say "excellent" we need to report that mainstream review was nowhere near "excellent". SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely oppose. We might be able to dispute “excellent health” but we should not say anything about heart disease. The very reference you cited - Huffpost - says at great length and detail that Gupta is wrong and that “Experts are siding with Dr. Jackson’s initial assessment of Trump’s heart health. The president’s test results do not reveal heart disease” and that Gupta is misinterpreting one test. Also that symptoms, not calcium levels, are the way to detect cardiac disease. So forget about cardiac disease and let’s talk about whether we should say something about “excellent health”. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Maron, the Stanford cardiologist, has expertise in this area, but I didn't hear him saying that Trump has cardiac disease, only that "God, no," he is not in excellent health. As for Topol, he is not qualified to make this diagnosis. He is a very highly regarded doctor, but he is a researcher, not a clinician, and the primary focus of his work has been in genetics. As for experts in general: a doctor who has seen test results is NOT in an equally good position to diagnose heart disease as someone who has examined the patient. Things like actually listening to the heart are still very basic to cardiology. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you propose some synthesis or new alternative? That would be good. I think we may have jumped to specific language before parsing the appropriate details of the content. SPECIFICO talk 00:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

See #Specific proposal 1A. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Restoring removal of RS DUE WEIGHT health information

The health section seems to have been degraded since we began discussing the improvements in the preceding topic here. In particular, the word "excellent" which most RS put in quotes to attribute it to the examining MD, have been removed with the false edit summary that they are "scare quotes". Not. Also, the information from the examining MD that POTUS' elevated cholesterol was not adequately managed by his dosage of Crestor and that the physician is increasing the dosage has been removed. Most impartial physicians who have reviewed the publicly available record have stated that POTUS is significantly overweight and that his high cholesterol, weight, belly fat, diet, and lack of exercise point to a diagnosis of early stage heart disease. We will need to find the proper way to incorporate that information in the article, but to remove the physician's own statements about "excellent" health and about his upping POTUS' meds can't help us here. Does anyone object to reinstating the statin sentence and the "excellent" quotes, per RS? There are abundant RS for the statin dosage, e.g. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of quotes around excellent; that's what the man said, we are paraphrasing, quotation marks around that one word are inappropriate. (So to be clear, I object to restoring them.) And I don't think we should create a "rebuttal section", quoting outside physicians in attempts to contradict the physician who examined him. At most we might include one comment, which Dr. Gupta expressed well in the Q&A section (sorry, don't have a link right now, paraphrasing): "How can a man who is overweight, has high cholesterol, eats a poor diet, and doesn't exercise be described as being in excellent health?" I would strongly oppose quoting anyone who thinks they can remote-diagnose heart disease. This has been our position here through several years: we do not cite "armchair" medical diagnoses by people who did not actually examine the patient. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I am ok with restoring the information that he increased the statin dose. That's fairly routine, but it comes from the doctor who examined him, so it is of far more credibility than outside commentary. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Maron and Topol's comments are not armchair diagnoses, as I said above. You don't have to touch the patient to say whether a set of test results suggest "excellent health", which were Jackson's words. I haven't proposed saying word one about heart disease, only that these doctors strongly dispute the "excellent health" characterization based on the test results. And, for organization's sake, I wish you'd put your response in the subsection where that is being discussed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss, you didn't mention heart disease, but SPECIFICO did, and that's who I was replying to. I'll copy the relevant parts of my comments into the subsection above, if I can figure out which that is; there are an awful lot of conversations going on here about the same subject. --MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, SPECIFICO and every distinguished heart specialist who's been consulted by the most reliable of mainstream sources. Jackson said his heart health is "excellent" and the quotes are used by the RS citations, they were not added for any inappropriate effect on WP. As Mandrus has clearly explained, the doctor's unprecedented and over the top press briefing went beyond his professional assessment. The Dana Milbank WaPo piece summarizes this very well. It is not armchair diagnosis, it's not repeating preposterous inflated talking points that the White House would like everyone to take at face value. As some have pointed out, the language was remarkably similar to the famed Dr. Bornstein fiasco during the campaign. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where in all this mass of discussion to put this, so I'll just say it here: About the cognitive screening exam: “perfect score” as we once had is a misnomer. The exam is designed so that EVERY normally functioning person is supposed to achieve a perfect score. The appropriate description would be that he “passed”. I see that’s what we now have in the article and it should stay. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'd be fine with leaving the entire 2018 exam bit out of the article. What I think we need to avoid is repeating and giving a platform for staged promotional narratives where RS identify them as such. Unless POTUS suffers a health crisis within the next year or two, I am sure this 2018 bit will not be in this article in 5 years and I see no reason why it should be in here now. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please spare us your commentary about “flattery and sycophantic bluster” and “promotional presentation” (earlier) and “preposterous inflated talking points” and “staged promotional narratives” (now). We get it: you don’t believe Dr. Jackson, you don't believe anything the White House says, and you want the article to say so. So now let’s stick to sources and WP policies. One such policy is WP:NOTFORUM. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Deep breath, MelanieN. Please do not miscast this as a personal issue. I am citing many RS over and over and many policy considerations. I'd appreciate it if you'd respond instead to what I stated -- what do you think of omitting this 2018 exam WP:NOTNEWS recentism bit entirely? SPECIFICO talk 00:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I very much doubt whether the comments I quoted just now were quotes from Reliable Sources. No, to answer your question, I don't think we should omit this information. It has gotten enough coverage to need a paragraph per WP:WEIGHT. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

What about recentism and notnews? Lots of things get this much coverage and never make it into WP articles, don't they? Dana Milbank asks "is the doctor OK?" That's pretty strong stuff from a very moderate mainstream view. "staged promotional narratives" should not be controversial about any politician or public figure. WP editors need to know that. It may have come up a lot with this adminsitration because so many of the narratives have turned out to be false rather than just artfully colored. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Move recent exam to the Presidency article

Let's omit I see the uneventful annual physical as entirely appropriate subject matter for the Presidency of Donald Trump article. All recent presidents get these physicals with some sort of public statement, and in that context this one attracted at least the standard level of attention due to the unfortunate excitement surrounding Wolff's highly promoted book. But in Misplaced Pages biographies, I don't see references to annual checkups. Not unless they produce real news of disease or disability, which is not the case here. The first two paragraphs of the current Health section content on this article give our readers noteworthy facts we might see in any biography article. The annual checkup does not. It's just another goofy artifact of the current media environment and the unfortunate timing surrounding the unverified denigration of POTUS in Michael Wolff's booktour. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• No oppose per proposer, but it would move the unresolved neutrality issue to that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Article structure

Anyone object to this? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I object to that specific change to the article structure, but I am open to changing it. For example I don't think that hiding something like Upon his inauguration as president, Trump delegated the management of his real estate business to his two adult sons, Eric and Don Jr. at the bottom of the page as is wise, but something like Trump does not drink alcohol; this decision arose in part from watching his older brother Fred Jr. suffer from alcoholism that contributed to his early death in 1981. could be. Also I don't think that saying a discussion of something that happened at the talkpage of someone like Dina Powell will be convincing to people here, whether that is rightly so or not is debatable but I think it is something to consider. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It’s not hiding anything, see the “conflicts of interest” subsection: At a press conference on January 10, 2017, Trump said that he and his daughter Ivanka would resign all roles with The Trump Organization, while his two adult sons Don Jr. and Eric would run the business with chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg. Trump retained his financial stake in the business.. Also, the closer of the Powell RFC (linked in my edit summary) said, “There is a strong consensus to support the change. To maintain consistency across the style(s) followed at a majority of BLP articles.” That’s correct. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep the original structure. True, in many articles it is common to put "personal" at the bottom of the article, provided it's a brief item that just consists of the names of their spouse and kids, maybe a few other details like where they live. That’s the case with the article you linked, Dina Powell. But Trump's “personal” material is not a few trivial details; it is a large section with four subsections. It contains a lot of information important to the subject, and IMO should remain at the top of the article, not the bottom. What works for Dina Powell does not work for a complicated subject like Donald Trump. Or for other presidents either; see Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. IMO this attempted move was proposed in good faith, but I oppose it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think the Bill Clinton BLP has any personal life section, much less a personal life section jammed above its chronological sections. Not that I think you cited Clinton in bad faith or anything. In this BLP, the huge “wealth” subsection could be put at the end of the business section, but I still think the health and family sections ought to go in a personal life section after the chronological sections. If the first part of this BLP is not chronological, then the chronological parts of this BLP will gradually be cluttered up with non-chronological stuff as is already starting to happen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. This is not a typical biography.- MrX 🖋 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That’s right, there is no separate “personal” section in the Clinton article; the information is incorporated into the article. (Of four the items you moved: the Bill Clinton article has his family background information under “Early life and career” - in other words, at the top of the article - and a sentence about his marriage and family under “Law school”. I didn’t find anything about his religion or health. His “wealth” is listed under “post presidency”.) In the Barack Obama article, his family and personal information are at the top of the article, under “Early life and career”. So are his religious views. At the George W. Bush article, “Family and personal life” is a subsection of “Early life and Career”, at the top of the article. In other words, all three of our most recent past presidents have that kind of information at the top of the article, under “Early life and career”. Need more examples showing that prominent politicians don’t have a “personal life” section down at the end of the article? See Mitt Romney, John McCain, Hillary Clinton … shall I go on? This is just not appropriate or practical for such people. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I left family background at the top of this BLP including ancestry and the family he was born into. It’s the later family stuff that’s now out of chronological order. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I reverted Anythingyouwant's good-faith change in order to prompt discussion. The article structure has been stable for a long time, as questions toward placement of various subsections pertaining to Trump's personal life have been debated and settled. I am not opposed in principle to a change, but perhaps Anythingyouwant could submit a rationale motivating such change: what's wrong with the current structure, and how does their proposal improve the article overall? The only argument I can parse above, besides matters of personal taste, is a "slippery slope" supposition that the chronological parts of this BLP will gradually be cluttered up with non-chronological stuff. We can take care of that by trimming excess fluff in this section when it appears, and that is indeed what happened several times when some sections got bloated. Finally, the RfC close from another, much-shorter article about a minor personality, should have limited relevance here, if any. — JFG 22:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I linked to that RFC because the arguments are relevant here, and the closer was correct to say “There is a strong consensus to support the change. To maintain consistency across the style(s) followed at a majority of BLP articles.” The present BLP is becoming a disorganized hodgepodge. Readers will not understand why they are reading what they are reading. The first part of the BLP should be chronological like the vast majority of featured BLPs. Sticking in other stuff out of chronology is bad writing, and it also causes article instability, subjectivity, and hassles because we have to decide case-by-case which stuff is important enough to be earlier in the BLP, and we’re also seeing a lot of redundancy issues because people want some stuff to go in both chronological order and subject order. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

To maintain consistency across the style(s) followed at a majority of BLP articles. Considering that a majority is 50% + 1, that doesn't seem very relevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It’s a vast majority for featured BLPs. When’s the last time you picked up a biographical book that wasn’t chronological? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That isn't what that closer said. If you're withdrawing that part of your argument, say so. Better yet, strike it for clarity. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

A bare majority of BLPs, and a vast majority of featured BLPs, are completely chronological or chronological until late in the article. That’s what I’ve said consistently here today, and there’s nothing contradictory in that RFC I pointed to. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to keeping biographies in chronological order (see my suggestion below for a different improvement proposal in this regard), however the first section addresses themes that are orthogonal to Trump's life story; placing them in strictly chronological order would blur their significance. For example the development of his wealth can't readily be assigned to a particular moment in his real estate efforts or his media career. Likewise, his family story is interweaved with his business, media and political activities. On the other hand, the "ancestry" and "religion" sections are a bit TMI at the top of the article. But if we send the whole "Personal life" section to the bottom, readers would dive directly into Trump's early business without a clue about the context that shaped his character. — JFG 09:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There are really only three ways to structure a biography:

1. Strictly topical (good for short articles)
2. Strictly chronological (good for short or medium length articles)
3. Topic/chronology hybrid

I prefer the latter, where the article is divided into topics that are ordered according to prominence/notability, and then the content of each topic is ordered chronologically. What we seem to have right now is a messy hybrid of all three philosophies, and this is leading to arguments about where things should go. Of course, any restructuring of an article this big is going to be an immense task. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Moving the "Public profile" section

Looking at the overall structure, the main break in chronology is the "Public profile" section, which is currently tacked between Trump's media career and his political history. I would suggest placing this section at the end of the article, between "Presidency" and "See also". What do y'all think? — JFG 07:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That is generally where those sort of sections go - I'd support.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sections like that typically go lower, and a lot of the stuff in that section is already appropriately mentioned in various other sections, so moving it wouldn't be like hiding it all at the bottom. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I currently have no objection to this, although that may change if we end up altering the article structure significantly in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and why is this being discussed yet again, and why the multiple attempts by to bury this information at the bottom of the article? The discussion a mere four days ago indicated consensus for the current position, headings, and structure Besides, if we followed a strictly chronological arrangement, his public profile would stay near the top anyway because his public profile began in 1973 when he was sued by the DOJ for housing discrimination. Scjessey, I'm not sure why you have changed your mind on this.- MrX 🖋 14:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• While it is true I supported the title and location in that earlier discussion, it was the title I was most concerned with. I am happy with either location, and I do not consider the new location as an attempt to "bury" anything. And as I said above, I may withdraw my approval if we do any additional structural alterations. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification.- MrX 🖋 15:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it really buries the information Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "Public profile" section is new (it was created this month), so neither its content nor its placement get the treatment under DS that longstanding content gets. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: The discussion you are referencing resulted in placing the new "Racial views" content in a "Public profile" section that also includes other aspects of how Trump is viewed by the public; it was not conclusive as to where this new section should be placed within the overall biography, and I think it ended up in the middle of Trump's careers by chance. Placing it after the "Presidency" section is not an "attempt to bury this information", it's just an attempt to provide our readers with a well-structured biography. Actually, from a UX standpoint, a bottom section will get more attention than a middle section, especially when reading the table of contents.

Stunningly enough, we don't have yet an article called "Public image of Donald Trump": there was an attempt at creating that a few months ago but it was deleted IIRC for lack of quality content (basically it just said Trump was a douche). If/when we write such an article, then the "Public profile" section here should be a natural WP:SUMMARY of it. — JFG 03:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Several editors in the previous discussion commented that the "current edit looks good" or similar. We were, after all talking about, "Where to put the "racial views" coverage". At the very least, ping all of the editors who previously commented to see if they want this material at the bottom of the article.- MrX 🖋 03:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Come on, you already pinged everyone previously. The previous discussion was titled "Where to put the 'racial views' coverage". Here's what people said about it who have not commented in the present talk page section....User:MelanieN said "Putting the 'Image' section at the end - after the 'president' section - makes sense to me. It's a kind of summary-of-his-entire-life section, it has no chronology." User:Signedzzz said, "I think the image section should stay where it is now, just before the politics section." User:Emir of Misplaced Pages said, "Either a subsection of 'Family and personal life' or put it after the political sections". User:SPECIFICO said, "I think the Public Profile section would logically go between Family and Religion". No one else commented about it; several other editors agreed with changing the header to "Public profile" from "image" which was a different issue from placement of the section. So, there are three editors currently objecting to moving the section down: SPECIFICO, MrX, and Signedzzz as best I can tell. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ummm, I may have said that in connection with a section that was JUST about his public image (a sort of popular-culture section as in many articles). I can't find it, but maybe I did. It's not clear to me what kind of "public profile" section you are talking about here. But I have been very clear, in the earlier thread (the one called "Article structure"), that I OPPOSE putting all kinds of other information, particularly the large "personal," "family," "health," and "wealth" subsections, into a section at the bottom of the article, regardless of what that section is called. --MelanieN (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The section being proposed to moved is Donald_Trump#Public_profile Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now I see it. You are talking about the section that includes "political image", "racial views", "popular culture", and "social media". There really isn't a good place for that section, since it has no chronology. I don't share the obsession of some others here about "chronology" and in general I think a subject-based order, rather than a chronology-based order, is preferable. I think it is OK where it is but I wouldn't object to putting it at the bottom. --MelanieN (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and challenged the recent insertion of this "profile" info by reverting it. Then, in a separate edit, I inserted it lower in the BLP per proposal above. Anyone should feel free to revert the latter edit, but I think per DS consensus would be needed to revert the former edit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I hadn’t really evaluated this question or reviewed the previous discussion until User:Anythingyouwant’s cute trick to impose his own preference even while discussion is ongoing. (The cute trick was: first delete the entire section as “a challenge to recently added material,” then immediately re-add it in a different place. Ummm, if you were willing to immediately restore the material to the article, then you weren’t really challenging it, were you?) So I have now evaluated the previous discussions and found 1) the “image” section was created, by agreement and without objection, after discussion at the talk page, so it is not eligible to be “challenged by removal”, and 2) there was a pretty clear consensus to put it where it was and not at the end of the article.

• In an extensive discussion above, “Racial views” (Jan. 12-13), it was agreed to include a “racial views” section in this article, and such a section was created by User:Gandydancer on Jan. 13. There was no objection, and multiple other people edited and improved the section, so it was clearly accepted by consensus. In another discussion, “Where to put the “racial views” coverage” (Jan.13-14), User:Galobtter suggested putting that material into an “image” section. There was discussion, “image” was agreed to, and the section was created. Again, nobody objected to its creation, and other editors edited and improved the section. So this image section was was created according to prior consensus on the talk page. It is immune from “challenging as recently created material,” since consensus to include it had already been obtained. In fact, consensus would be needed to remove it.

• In the “Where to put the “racial views” coverage” discussion, Anything objected to the location of that new section in the article on chronology grounds; Anything argued to put it at the bottom of the article. User:MrX pinged recent editors to weigh in on the question of “where to place the image section”. MrX and User:Signedzzz wanted it kept where it was; User:Emir of Misplaced Pages and I were OK with moving it to the end. Then User:SPECIFICO retitled it and suggested putting it between Family and Religion, and the following people agreed: User:Scjessey, MrX, User:My very best wishes, Gandydancer, User:Bullrangifer, and User:Steve Quinn. (All of them agreed with the new title, Scjessey also endorsed the proposed placement, and none disagreed with the proposed placement.) This was arguably consensus for its current location; at bare minimum, there were more people who wanted it where it was than wanted it moved to the bottom of the page, even if you don’t count the people who agreed with SPECIFICO’s proposal without specifically (no pun intended) mentioning the location.

Bottom line, there was consensus to create the "public image" section, and there was arguably consensus for its then-current location in the article. And that’s aside from the contradictory action of pretending to “challenge” a section and then immediately restoring it. So I will revert the removal and restore the section to its original place until some other consensus is developed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. In the recent discussion, JFG, Galobtter, and Anything supported the move to the bottom of the page; MrX objected; Scjessey and I said we didn’t object or didn't care. Most people have not weighed in yet. So it is possible a new consensus might develop, but it hasn’t yet. Until it does, I don’t think a move under false pretenses (which is how I regard Anything’s action) should be allowed to stand. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I see that the section has already been moved back to its previous location by User:Signedzzz. Thank you, zzz, you beat me to it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I concur with everything above, and further suggest Anythingyouwant should at least be trouted for transparently (albeit creatively) violating discretionary sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Should we have an RfC to see which of the two options so far expressed has the most support? Or we could look for a compromise between the two options.- MrX 🖋 17:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, RfC's have to be the way of life here, among other reasons becuase folks just don't notice otherwise and then the proposals get modified one way or another and there's never closure. You could just take a straw poll before launching a long cumbersome process of RfC. Maybe there's easy consensus. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I considered sending him a WP:MINNOW (a small one because I think he acted on what he thought was a good-faith, or at least a clever-but-not-illegal, interpretation of the rules) but I decided to let it go. I agree that RfCs have become all too common here and it would be good if we could settle this without a formal RfC. And I think it's too bad that we keep raising the same issues over and over, so that either earlier opinions get overridden or else people have to keep coming back and weighing in again and again. As for a compromise, that would be nice but it's hard to see how one can compromise on a question of "either put it here or there". --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's too bad that we keep raising the same issues over and over, so that either earlier opinions get overridden or else people have to keep coming back and weighing in again and again. The solution: 1. Make the consensus clear, so future editors are not required to spend an hour reading and analyzing a discussion to see it. The only ways I know of to do that are straw polls and RfCs, unless it's a really simple question that didn't require a lot of discussion. 2. Add the consensus to the list. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Possibly questionable source

I notice that Wooten, Sara (2009). Donald Trump: From Real Estate to Reality TV by Enslow Publishers is presently cited 8 times in this article, and included in the bibliography. The book is classified as juvenile nonfiction (Google Books, WorldCat), and while the information might be true or uncontested, it may be prudent to double check the claims with other sources, per WP:CHILDRENLIT, for instance to ensure certain facts aren't overly simplified. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus 23 discrepancy

Somehow the article has been allowed to deviate from the text at #Current consensus #23. Consensus version:

He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was partially implemented after legal challenges.

Article version:

Citing security concerns, he ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries; a revised version was implemented after legal challenges.

It's a minor difference, but to date we have not allowed even minor differences and it would be a very slippery slope to start doing so. What needs to be done to correct this? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been  Fixed. @Mandruss: In the future, do not worry about asking anything here first. You are always allowed per the page restrictions to immediately reverse any change to established consensus items in the article back to their consensus form. Such reversions do not apply against the WP:1RR restriction in effect (just be sure to reference the consensus item number in the edit summary when doing so). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I did it this way only because certain competent editors, including one who cares as much about the integrity of the list as anybody, were involved in the change. I suspected it was a case of them failing to update the list with the revised consensus. But this way works too, if that's the case it's not too late to update the list and change the article back, provided there is no serious disagreement about the strength of the new consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

After a short discussion here, between all editors who would like to ensure their input is heard, it would be fine to update the consensus per standard protocol. It's just that the consensus items on the article are not to be changed without doing so first. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm saying that discussion may have already occurred and it's just a matter of locating it in the archive. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_69#Amending_consensus_#23 for the relevant discussion (why the wording was different than the consensus 23 version). It looks like it was auto archived before a formal close, but at a glance it looks to me like there was consensus in that discussion to change #23 from "partially" to "revised". I haven't been following things closely enough to know if the new wording is more accurate now, but I believe that was the case when the discussion took place. ~Awilley (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I make it 5+1⁄2–2 (one weak agree) for the following, which is not quite the same as the above "article version". We can debate whether it's enough to change #23, but it is not what I would call a clear consensus. Generally I would expect to see a (not necessarily uninvolved) close for something that changes an existing consensus.

He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges.

―Mandruss ☎ 05:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• High-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Former good article nominees
• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment