Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:30, 27 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!

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 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

Other talk page banners

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 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 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).

	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

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 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.

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".

Open RfCs and surveys

• #RfC: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead
• #Challenges to "excellent health" (several proposals)
• #Proposal: Move recent exam to the Presidency article
• #Survey: location of the "Public profile" section
• #Survey: Amending lede paragraph
• #Survey: Adding criticized as racist to 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)
• No Per GCG and Phmoreno. Display name 99 (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes there's an entire article about it. If there's enough to justify an entire article about it, how can anyone justify not putting a mention in the lead of the article of the person who's the focus of that coverage? Amsgearing (talk) 17:16, 27 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)

No This is an encyclopedia article, not a tabloid. If he gets convicted of sexual misconduct in a court of law, then it will be worthy of inclusion is the lead. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes Roy Moore's article includes allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead, and unlike Trump, Moore isn't on tape admitting to the behavior he's been accused of. It is also in the lead of John Conyers article, despite the fact that the accusations Conyers faced were less serious than those Trump has faced. Misplaced Pages should not take the position that Trump's electoral victory renders irrelevant credible accusations of sexual misconduct by more than a dozen women.Kiernanmc (talk) 04:26, 25 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)

I heard, through the grapevine, that there is a drink called the Stormy Daniels, possibly a variation of the old Dark 'n' Stormy. Do any of you know? Drmies (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. (no exception for arbs) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Glad I didn't say I just keep thinking it means Stormy Weather. O3000 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Not an arb anymore, Mandruss--just an interested observer. :) Drmies (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

OK User:Mandruss HOW DO YOU SPELL "RELIABLE SOURCES" IN RUSSIAN! Drmies (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

надежные источники. Why do you ask? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 24 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)

The New York Times, science reporter Gina Kolata, yesterday: Trump Passed a Cognitive Exam. What Does That Really Mean? Good description of the MoCA. I doubt it changes anything for us, but it's informative FTR. It does say that 26–30 is considered "normal". ―Mandruss ☎ 23:37, 20 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)

We must dismiss any and all doctors who have not examined the patient. I'd say the same thing if the White House doctor said Trump has cancer while notable cancer experts who reviewed his X-Rays independently would assess his prospects as excellent. — JFG 18:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Very cute. However you're not responding to the central points, a) that we are not discussing a diagnosis, and b) that we are discussing the press talking points, not the medical duties, functions, or responsibilities of an examining physician. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 21 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)

Just a random comment, but you folks are aware that the Hippocratic oath isn't actually legally binding (patient confidentiality and protection laws are). --2001:999:43:B30E:A994:E6AF:910A:FED9 (talk) 09:29, 21 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)
• Oppose – Alternative opinions about Trump's health are a dime a dozen. Let's stick to what was stated by doctors who have examined him. — JFG 18:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Guesses by armchair doctors should not be included. PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 22 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)

User:SPECIFICO Your attempts to distinguish between "diagnosis" and - what? general description of health without a specific diagnosis? - are hair splitting. Either we let outside doctors comment on the subject's health, or we don't. I generally oppose such commentary, but in this case I am willing to allow a general statement like the one proposed here. It's not clear what you are arguing for, if it isn't a general statement along those lines; we are certainly not going to say anything about "spin". If you wish a "tweak", please suggest your proposed wording in a separate section so that we can discuss this proposal here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

With the passage of even this brief period of time, my initial reaction that this is another case of RECENTISM and NOTNEWS seems to be confirmed. I strongly prefer dropping the whole thing from the bio and putting a 6 word sentence in the Presidency article -- Trump's physician said his 2018 POTUS physical revealed no significant problems. Then we can update yearly. That would be encyclopedic. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Why would you not put that sentence in the "Health" section? --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I would not include "who have not examined Trump" because it suggests their statements are not based on fact and professional judgment. As I've said, that would be the case if they offered a diagnosis and such diagnosis would be inappropriate. But what's attributed to them is a reaction to his "weight, lifestyle, and test results". And that information was fully available to them and their statements do not go beyond what is known to have been public. So the "not examined" is irrelevant and its only effect is to plant the suggestion -- for some, not all, of our readers -- that these armchair opinions are undue, untoward, unfounded and unprofessional. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Responding separately to the "splitting hairs" concern: There are infinite subtleties of language and presentation that can insinuate messages most editors here would not intend if they were explicitly stated. This kind of POV problem is old as the hills. It's not only a Misplaced Pages problem, but we must be especially careful about it on these politics articles where more direct forms of misinformation are easy to root out and expunge. So unfortunately, rooting out hairs and POVs is part of our jobs here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

• Oppose – Alternative opinions about Trump's health are a dime a dozen. Let's stick to what was stated by doctors who have examined him. — JFG 18:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - This is a noteworthy analysis of the results of the physical as reported by his physician and puts the information in a neutrally presented context. I will take a dozen prominent physicians over one who may not have any choice but to embellish his report about Trump's health.- MrX 🖋 21:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support relevant and covered in reliable sources. If this were guy on the street opinions then they would be useless. However, these are knowledgeable experts looking at the data and reaching conclusions. This is in agreement with NPOV. I also agree with MrX, word for word. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Guesses by armchair doctors should not be included. PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 22 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)

• Oppose – Alternative opinions about Trump's health are a dime a dozen. Let's stick to what was stated by doctors who have examined him. — JFG 18:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above proposal (1A). Lorstaking (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 02:51, 23 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)

Please drop the stick. Looks like Trump is in better health than most Americans his age, whether commenters like it or not. — JFG 18:32, 21 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)
• Oppose We have a "health" section. We mention the report from his private physician, issued during the primary, in that section. I can't see any justification for not listing the report from his current (White House) physician in the same place. It's true that we haven't always mentioned the annual physical for other presidents, but their annual physicals have not received this much WP:WEIGHT of coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support omission - A bad physical would be noteworthy, but an unremarkable one like this one is not. If this is considered notable, then the now-deleted "girther movement" article should be too, since many of the sources are the same. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  For this patient, it's noteworthy that it's unremarkable. And note the 3 competing proposals to add the opposing medical opinion, above. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - A medical exam is about the person not the presidency. This one was notable for the inclusion of a mental cognitive test.PackMecEng (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it drew media attention (briefly) because the physician publicized the cognitive screening. Of all the BLPs of 70+ year olds, how many discuss the fact that they did not fail a simple screening? Those who fail get treated for senility and we still don't include it in their BLPs unless there's some additional effect. Would you think the cognitive screening was encyclopedic content for any of hundreds of living septugenarian articles? I fully accept your reasoning with respect to the Presiency article, but not the personal bio. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

How many received over a years worth of daily coverage regarding their mental health? Then went and specifically took a mental health test from Obama's doctor to disprove those accusations. Seems like everyone was happy to include negative mental health information based on armchair doctors and when a real report comes out from someone that has been with him for a long time comes out to disprove it, it is no longer notable. PackMecEng (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Just to make clear, I do not mean you specifically comrade SPECIFICO. PackMecEng (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

everyone was happy to include negative mental health information based on armchair doctors - #Current consensus #21 seems to contradict that statement. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, luckily level heads prevailed. PackMecEng (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - A routine physical, with results that are only surprising in that they were reported as representative of "excellent health", is not significant enough to include in a prominent bio.- MrX 🖋 21:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Notable aspect of Trump throughout his life.. If this is moved it should be moved to some dedicated article about the health of Trump. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that annual "no problems" updates have been put in this article since it first appeared? We already have the noteworthy health information in the first 2 paragraphs. What biographical information does the recent press briefing add to that? SPECIFICO talk 23:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support I think that suspicions about Trump's mental competence are being omitted anyway (?) in which case there is no point in including this. zzz (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support moving to Presidency article. This is only relevant because Trump is president, otherwise I strongly doubt the press would be covering his health. Also, numbers of prominent physicians would not be commenting on the data and challenging his "excellent health" diagnosis if he wasn't president. So, yes this belongs in the Presidency article more than here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Health reports are about the person, not their presidency. — JFG 23:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It really would be more helpful if you would assess the pros and cons of the move as set forth by other users in this thread. How's Bill Gates' liver function? Murdoch's cholesterol? SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Glad you asked. If there was anything widely reported by RS about Bill Gates' liver function, I very much believe it would fit in our Bill Gates article, not in Microsoft or in Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. — JFG 01:12, 24 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. A close helps, and it can be an involved close if appropriate under the applicable close guidelines. 2. Add the consensus to the list. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, it would be good it we could settle it without an RfC, but when you initially raised this at '#Where to put the "racial views" coverage' the discussion was progressing, then an editor jumped right in the middle with a commercial break to announce another discussion, then another editor changed the wording of a section heading, at which point it was not clear whether people were agreeing to the position of the sections or the wording of the section heading. On top of that, Anythingyouwant started a new discussion and then implemented the edit he wanted in the first place.- MrX 🖋 18:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Despite supporting it - it is a pretty ridiculous "cute trick"..I think a survey (without an RfC) could settle this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with doing a survey, with two options, no more; no write ins; no infomercials, etc..- MrX 🖋 18:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey: location of the "Public profile" section

Where should the "Donald Trump#Public profile" section be located?

• A. at current location, between "Media career" and "Political career up to 2015"
• B. after the chronological sections, between "Presidency" and "See also"

Arguments on the merits of such placement can be found in the above subsections. Further discussion may be conducted below. — JFG 18:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• B — JFG 18:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• A — Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• A — SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• A — MrX 19:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• A --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• A - zzz (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• A TheValeyard (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• B Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• A --Steve Quinn (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Lean A, but honestly I don't think it really matters where. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• A -- Gandydancer (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• B Rreagan007 (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• A ParaNerd023 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Further discussion

• Comment on process - If the purpose of this is to show a consensus, it needs the concise arguments that distinguish !votes from votes. If this is what Misplaced Pages means by the term "straw poll", it isn't what I meant when I said this yesterday. The first 5 voters commented in the above two sections, so one might assume that their arguments can be found there (as JFG's comment suggested above). I would have to take it on faith that Signedzzz and TheValeyard read the discussion and are !voting "per" one or more editors there.
  If the purpose is only to take the local temperature, disregard this comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I just intended this survey as a "local temperature" measurement, so the discussion wouldn't run in circles. — JFG 23:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Possibly questionable source

I notice that Wooten, Sara (2009). Donald Trump: From Real Estate to Reality TV by Enslow Publishers (ISBN 978-0-7660-2890-6) 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)

That's a good point. I wonder who would use a children's book to source an article about Trump. Oh, never mind.- MrX 🖋 23:45, 21 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)

I support the revised version. --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

On the strength of that 6+1⁄2–2, I support updating the list and changing the article to the last version talkquoted above. I would like to ask User:JFG to do that, since he seems best at handling these complex consensus revisions. If it isn't done within about 48 hours, and there is no objection by then, I'll take my best shot at it.
It's a nit, but the copy editing to move "citing security concerns" to the start of the sentence will regrettably require another consensus and revision—preferably separate from this thread—which shouldn't take too long. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No objections from me. ~Awilley (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I support the revised version. I see what you did here… — JFG 18:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - Thanks for spotting that the consensus statement had not been updated to reflect a later discussion amended it. The amended consensus language reflects that events shifted. "The new text concisely reflects the current situation, after the Supreme Court allowed full implementation of the third version of the travel ban, as defined in Presidential Proclamation 9645 (linked from the text as well)." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Mandruss for handling this while I was offline. I took the liberty to link the first "travel ban" mention to the original Executive Order 13769 which caused so much furore. Then the "revised version" which went into effect links to Presidential Proclamation 9645, a section of Executive Order 13780 which describes the travel ban's current scope and provisions. — JFG 18:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JFG. The rationale for excluding wikilinks from the consensus, which you and I agreed upon back then, still applies, and I've revised #23 accordingly.. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, sure, but I think we should put those links up for consensus by now. Situation is stable enough. — JFG 18:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

So put 'em up! Cart–horse. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Possibly some day. Had enough of one survey for today. — JFG 18:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

" He became the fifth person to be elected president while receiving fewer popular votes than his opponent."

This is a direct quote from the lede in our article on George W Bush, merely changing the ordinal. Why do we not have something similar here? It is a rare and notable occurrence; it occasioned much comment at the time and continues to do so. --Pete (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Already covered. Please take a look at Trump's current lead section: He became the oldest and wealthiest and the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote. — JFG 18:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has been extensively and exhaustively discussed. A consensus formed around the wording currently in the fourth paragraph of the lede: "He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Good! But shame on me for missing this. Any chance we can boldface it? --Pete (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus 23 substantive change

Comment I continue to think there's a problem with this language. The ban that was implemented is not a revision of the same ban. The initial ban was a "Muslim Ban" per the campaign promises and policy pronouncements. That was struck down by the courts. The current travel restriction was able to be implemented because it is fundamentally different. It is no longer a Muslim Ban due to the addition of non-Muslim identified nations. So it's not a revised version any more than a cake is a revised version of a cookie or a strikeout is a revised version of a home run. The article text minimizes this fact, which was the crux of the court decisions and RS discussion of them. So I propose Alternative B:

Citing security concerns, he ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. After legal challenges blocked the president's order, a different restriction was ultimately implemented.

@Galobtter, Mandruss, and MrX: please consider. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm 50-50 on that, but I'm essentially treating this as a clerical minor reword, not saying that the current version is the best. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I know, I just figured as long as we're reconvening we may as well do a more permanent improvement from the current POV language that states the original policy was implemented with a tweak. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I would much prefer to keep separate issues separate. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm slowly recollecting what I was thinking of last time..I think it was for a more permanent solution of "He ordered a controversial travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries." per someone's suggestion. The initial travel ban was the most covered, while coverage has dropped off for the later stuff. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm eh on that too..SPECIFICO I don't think it is correct to say "ultimately" as the supreme court will rule in June - legal challenges are still going on. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Which reminds me that the travel ban portion needs updating with that.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely), but it would need to be in the article body before I would consider it for the lead.- MrX 🖋 17:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Which portion is not there? The body describes each variant of restriction in detail, and the legal challenges. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would prefer to keep the current wording. The new restriction isn't really "different", it just had a couple of non-Muslim countries added to get around the claim that it involves religious discrimination. (The additional countries seem to have been added almost randomly; to this day nobody can explain why Chad, an important ally of ours in the fight against terrorism, was added.) At best the new one was "modified". And Galobtter is correct that the latest version wasn't "ultimately" implemented; it was temporarily implemented. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

But it was not a "claim". It was the mandate of the Federal Judiciary of the US. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you propose to add "temporarily"? That might be good. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think temporarily is right, just have "implemented" - it could be temporary, it could be permanent.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point, I struck might be good. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think RS generally say more along the lines of "modified restriction" not "different restriction" Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The editors who've worked long and hard on this seem to say the Muslim Ban was revoked and that it was "replaced" with the new ban. Executive_Order_13780 and the old ban here -- SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, "revoked and replaced" is also correct, just how to represent the difference. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This proposed change would be needlessly confusing to readers, by presenting the various travel bans as fundamentally distinct from one another, whereas they really are a continuum. The furore erupted over the first version because the only countries that were targeted happened to be Muslim-majority, and Trump had made quite insensitive comments about "Muslims pouring into the United States" during his campaign. However, the White House always maintained that the motivation for the travel ban arose from security concerns (as represented in our current consensus wording), and the revised versions of the legislation have only clarified the target countries and the boundaries of the restrictions. That a Muslim country was removed from the initial targets and two non-Muslim countries were added, is no proof that the original ban was specifically directed at Muslim people; had this been the case, then many more countries should have been targeted, and they weren't. — JFG 23:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read the court rulings and RS discussion of them and see whether you want to reconsider that. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I have indeed read a lot about this topic, and that informed my statement above. Regarding any substantive changes to the lede summary of this affair, I would advocate waiting until the Supreme Court rules on the merits of the remaining challenges. — JFG 01:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump's Political Career and the Lede Section

Currently the lede opens with,

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.

I would like to change the second sentence to something that I think is more precise and also better demonstrates how unusual his election is. My suggestion is this:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017. Before running for President in 2016, he was a businessman and television personality.

I believe this more precisely conveys his entrance onto the political scene; he literally never held a government job--elected or appointed--before his election. Thoughts? Unschool 03:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is definitely more precise, in a manner of speaking. My question is, when did he actually enter politics? When he was claiming that Obama's U.S. citizenship is questionable, beginning in 2011, is this when he entered politics ? Did he back any candidates for office before officially running for president? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn:, your question goes to the issue of what it means to "enter politics"? To my mind, it refers largely to campaigning to win elected office. I don't consider someone who is merely a behind the scenes player (like George Soros or the Koch brothers) to have actually "entered" politics. But maybe mine is not a typical view.

I'd support, with some tweaks. He entered politics in 2000 with reform party candidacy, so the current version isn't really accurate. I'd say even "Before being President, he was a .." Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: The 2000 "campaign" is an interesting thing. Was he actually running? At the time, I would have said no, that he was simply doing what he had done before--trying to build up his brand. There's no evidence that he did anything serious in 2000. But you know what? I (and some others) expected the same thing in 2016. Even after he came down the escalator, I assumed that he would pull out (citing some BS reason) before having to fill out the financial paperwork. So I don't know. I'm still inclined to say his initial "entrance" into politics was in 2015, but I'm solidly flexible on the matter. :-) Unschool 05:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Background: #Current consensus item 17. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Current lead is not bad because before entering politics he was still a businessman and television personality. I support updating lead per Unschool for being more specific. Lorstaking (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose changing the lead. Trump was still a businessman while running for president. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay:. Obviously your observation is correct, but I disagree with your conclusion. This is actually a common formulation. For example, at Bill Clinton, it says,

Prior to the presidency, he was the Governor of Arkansas

even though he was still governor of Arkansas. I don't think this is a major problem, but maybe I'm missing something. Unschool 05:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this assessment, as he did not formally turn over control of his business interests until after he was elected. I'd probably support saying "Before being elected President in 2016...". Rreagan007 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I would support the proposed change. Trump's candidacy announced in June 2015 was a watershed moment in his life. From that point until the inauguration, he spent most of his time campaigning and transitioning; his business interests were sent to the back burner and handled by his children. Trump did make a couple public appearances to promote the opening of his Washington hotel and a golf course in Scotland, but even there most of the comments were political in nature and related to his campaign (putting to rest the Obama birther claims, and commenting on the Brexit vote, respectively). With regard to his "TV personality" career, he explicitly gave that up in order to run for president, although one could argue that as a candidate and as President, he has been more of a TV personality than ever… His drama skills served him well in both roles. — JFG 23:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wording should be tweaked to Before running for president in 2015, he was a businessman and television personality. or Before announcing his candidacy in June 2015, he was a businessman and television personality. or Before entering the 2016 presidential race, he was a businessman and television personality. (changes to OP's proposal in bold) — JFG 23:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Since this appears to be gaining a little traction, I'll say that I oppose capitalization of any standalone occurrence of "president", per MOS:JOBTITLES. That's "Before running for president...". ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree – edited my proposed alternate wording accordingly. — JFG 23:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. And both Steve Quinn and GoodDay have this right in their comments above. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, this makes sense in terms of "before entering politics" - but what about the verb "was"? He is still a businessman, in that he owns and profits from (but does not currently operate) The Trump Organization. Maybe we could say "was primarily a businessman and television personality"? --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's nitpicking. He is no longer a businessman even though he still owns large parts of The Trump Organization, in the same way that Bill Gates is no longer a businessman although he still holds a gazillion shares of Microsoft. Trump will perhaps revert to business after his presidency, but that's a topic we can park until 2021 (unless Mueller time prophecies come to pass). — JFG 00:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Before entering the 2016 presidential race, he was a businessman and television personality. is good; support that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm seeing a lot of general support for the gist of my proposal, but I know we need to tread carefully in the lede of this particular article. Shall we compare a few versions of this idea, with a variety of tweaks, or is it acceptable to be bold and make a change? And if we do, do we change #17? (thanks @Mandruss: for pointing this out; I had not been aware of this). Unschool 04:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Initial discussion appears to converge quickly, so getting consensus shouldn't rise to RfC level. I'll open a week-long survey to check if the wording getting most support can actually be accepted by a majority of editors. — JFG 12:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey: Amending lede paragraph

From the discussion above, there appears to be some emerging traction for amending the lead sentence (consensus item #17) as follows (changed part highlighted in italics, instead of "Before entering politics"):

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017. Before entering the 2016 presidential race, he was a businessman and television personality.

Please indicate your support or opposition to this amendment. — JFG 12:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support, per my rationale above. — JFG 12:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - A more accurate wording would be "Before assuming office, he was a businessman and television personality". GoodDay (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of the second sentence entirely, would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support, per comments and replies above. Unschool 12:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• The word "before" implies he is no longer these things, which is arguably untrue in the latter case and unquestionably untrue in the former. He is no less a businessman now then he was in 2014. GCG (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Certainly can argue that he is still a businessman or that he was a businessman till he entered office (the latter may be the case), but the wording is still an improvement - @GreatCaesarsGhost and GoodDay:, do you think the proposed wording is better than the current wording? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the current wording. But, if you're going to change it, adopt the version I mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the Silvio Berlusconi model (...is an American businessman and politician currently serving as...) but as that is a tall order, removing the second sentence is a good choice. Merkel is not a research scientist, Macron is not an investment banker. Even the most whitewashed description of Trump's control of his company would not suggest that he is no longer a businessman. GCG (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I concur with GCG's comment. I am now of the opinion that either the lede paragraph needs to be rewritten to acknowledge he is still a businessman and a TV personality, or the second sentence can be removed entirely because it is already handled properly in the body of the article and the infobox. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - While I personally think that the mention that he is still a businessman is unnecessary, it is nonetheless undeniably true. Rather than remove the second sentence, @GreatCaesarsGhost:'s notion of following the Berlusconi model strikes me as nearly perfect. Unschool 02:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per GoodDay's argument. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump and golf

A new page Donald Trump and golf has been created. Is this necessary as a stand-alone page, or should it be redirected to Business career of Donald Trump? I'm not sure the part about how much Trump has golfed as president should be combined with information about his ownership of golf courses. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Surachit: who created the page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My reasoning behind the article is that his relationships with his golf courses are notable for several reasons. Namely, the emoluments clause accusations (which have led to multiple lawsuits) and the possible conflicts of interest (which have been independently reported by several reliable sources). His ownership of the courses is just necessary background info.

"how much Trump has golfed as president" might not be encyclopedic on its own, but is relevant considering he's doing it at his own courses and potentially profiting from it, which would be a conflict of interest. And that's not my original research, it's just summarizing what has been reported. Surachit (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Surachit might be correct about the notability of the subject. We can still discuss what parts need to be merged if we are ready for a merge. Lorstaking (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Surachit: - what you're describing belongs at Presidency of Donald Trump, because Emoluments clause or criticisms 'how much as President' only exist as part of him being President. I don't think any of the above fits here at his biography page. The section Business_career_of_Donald_Trump#Golf_courses could use the list of courses. Don't get too excited about the number of times though -- snopes generally reviewed this and pooh-poohed it and Obama's 333 times when compared to Eisenhower or Wilson. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump tried to fire Mueller

This is something to keep an eye on for possible inclusion in this article: It doesn't get much more Nixonian than this.- MrX 🖋 04:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: - Added to Donald Trump#Special counsel Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Galobtter That edit's a bit conflusing in tmeline since this is reporting a June item. I'll try a patch to make that clearer for the moment, although I doubt that any of it passes both not being WP:OFFTOPIC for a WP:BLP and the WP:DUE a mention. Seems like a trivial rerun of the June tale going nowhere and just down into tidbit WP:GOSSIP scandalmongering. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been independently corroborated by at least three reputable news organizations, and it's entirely consistent with other Trump actions like firing Comey. In no way is it gossip or scandal mongering. - MrX 🖋 18:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It's very significant, adding to a growing pattern of obstruction of justice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Spacing between paragraphs lead

I know this is a minor point - but I really dislike how the foreign policy and domestic policy paragraphs are split, and how the second and third paragraphs are split in the lead..it just stretches the lead out - makes it have way too many short paragraphs. (would change but this actually is a slow-moving edit war really - was combined for sometime, then split, then combined..see if can get a consensus one way or the other) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the domestic and foreign policy paragraphs in the lead should be combined (and rewritten). Starting a lead paragraph "In domestic policy,..." is awkward. The second and third paragraphs could be combined, but are less of a concern to me. See the section I'm about to start below.- MrX 🖋 13:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hagiographic second paragraph

A portion of the second lead paragraph needs some tweaking. It currently reads:

A third generation businessman, he followed in the footsteps of his grandmother Elizabeth and father Fred in running the family's real estate company, which he renamed The Trump Organization; he managed the business from 1971 until his 2017 inauguration as president. Trump's real estate career focused on building or renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. He also started multiple side ventures and branded and licensed his name for real estate and various products.

I propose changing it to something a bit more encyclopedic sounding like this:

Following his grandmother Elizabeth and father Fred, Trump's career started in 1971 running the family's real estate company, which he later renamed The Trump Organization. His real estate career involved construction of skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. He also started multiple side ventures, including branding and licensing his name for real estate and various products. He managed the business until his 2017 inauguration as president.

Thoughts?- MrX 🖋 13:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Much better; another slow-moving edit war (especially over third-generation businessman, which JFG removed but then was readded..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs some tweaks - "Following his grandmother Elizabeth and father Fred, Trump's career started in 1971 running the family's real estate company" - Trump's career wasn't following his grandmother... suggestion

"Following his grandmother Elizabeth and father Fred, Trump started running in 1971 the family's real estate company" Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(Never seen Trump run.) How about "Following his grandmother Elizabeth and father Fred, Trump began running the family's real estate company in 1971, later renamed The Trump Organization." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 18:58, January 26, 2018 (UTC)

I don't think took over is accurate as his father was still chairman or something; began running seems best. Again phrase problem; despite his numerous powers, Trump still hasn't renamed the year "1971" to "The Trump Organization". Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I also prefer having in 1971 in the end, but "later renamed The Trump Organization" right after that is slightly problematic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why it is important or necessary to indicate the business has been passed down through generations. I would simplify it thus:

Trump began his career in 1971 when he took over the running of his family's real estate company, later renaming it The Trump Organization, which involved constructing and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. He started multiple side ventures, including branding and licensing his name for real estate and various products. He managed the business until his 2017 inauguration.

-- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem with some of these are that we are trying to put too much information in one sentence which tends to make it unclear. One could read the above to mean that renaming the business involved building skyscrapers... I do agree that mentioning his pa and grandma are not particularly important.- MrX 🖋 14:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, here is another possible version:

Trump began running his family's real estate company in 1971, following his grandmother Elizabeth and father Fred. His real estate career involved construction of skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. He also started multiple side ventures, including branding and licensing his name for real estate and various products. He managed the business, known as the The Trump Organization, until his 2017 inauguration as president.

This includes all of the information except that the business was renamed, which is trivial anyway.- MrX 🖋 14:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ossia:

Trump took over running his family's real estate business in 1971, succeeding his father Fred and Fred's mother Elizabeth. He renamed it The Trump Organization and expanded the business to involve the construction of skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. He also started various side ventures, including branding and licensing his name for real estate and luxury consumer products. He managed the company until his 2017 inauguration as president.

SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This is my favorite so far. It's clear and succinct. Not fake. Like- MrX 🖋 14:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It's okay, but I still think it can be shortened:

Trump took over running his family's real estate business in 1971. He renamed it The Trump Organization and expanded it to involve constructing and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. He started various side ventures, including branding and licensing his name for real estate and luxury consumer products. He managed the company until his 2017 inauguration.

-- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Like this; unsure on whether succeeding should be included or not. Think can replace it.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Implemented Scjessey's wording. I think further rewording is needed in the lead to remove repetitiveness. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That works for me. - MrX 🖋 16:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I like Specifico's version better than Scjessey's. Too many words missing from the latter. ("He also started", "took over running") I also think naming the previous owners are a good way of saying it's a multi-generational company without actually having to say that explicitly. ~Awilley (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey's wording has "running"; I actually added "also", but then removed because there were three also's in one paragraph; doesn't family say that it is multi-generational? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

My view is that "family" already signifies multi-generational, but ultimately it doesn't matter because this article is about Trump, not the Trump Organization (which has its own article that explores the ownership lineage). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey: Adding criticized as racist to lead

Since when I proposed it 2 weeks ago it kinda died down without a conclusion, I'm reproposing it:

Add "Many of his comments have been criticized as racist, which he has denied." after "His election and policies have sparked numerous protests." in the lead. (if you would support with a rewording/prefer another wording can also indicate that)

Survey

• Support per my comments two weeks ago. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose not an important enough aspect of Trump for the lead. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support adding something along the lines proposed, expanded to include the popular appeal of such statements. Countless reliable sources report that Trump's racist statements are indeed "an important enough aspect", so (unsourced) WP:fringe theories like that expressed above by User:Emir of Misplaced Pages can be ignored, in line with policy. zzz (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not a fringe theory. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section says The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. with a footnote saying Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. You show these countless reliable sources saying that his "racist statements" are the most important point about him. It is OR and/or fringe theory to make such a claim, not the one I made which is about the absence of sources. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a selection of sources in the relevant section of the article. I have yet to see a reliable source backing up your theory. zzz (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Those sources are appropriate for that section, they don't state that him being criticized as racist are amongst his important aspects. What o you mean you have yet to see a reliable source backing up my theory? I am not presenting a theory just following the reliable sources. No reliable source or even an unreliable source has been presented stating that Trump being criticized as racist is amongst the most important aspect to his notability. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you look again at the sources in the article (even just reading the titles of the sources will suffice). And I repeat,I have yet to see any sources backing up your fringe theory that Trump's racist statements are "not an important enough aspect". (According to research, they are why he got elected...) zzz (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I have looked at the titles of the sources. What I am stating is not a fringe theory, but it is apparent as no source is stating the opposite. Sources don't state the omission but rather the inclusion of something, and therefore the omission of it proves that it is the the prevailing or mainstream view not fringe theory. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"The past year of research has made it very clear: Trump won because of racial resentment. Another study produces the same findings we’ve seen over and over again." "... proves that it is the the prevailing or mainstream view ..." - that is your stated opinion, obviously. It is the opposite of what reliable sources state, however. zzz (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I would take Vox as a source with a grain of salt there. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, they are a reliable source, though. That's what articles are based on. You don't have any backing up your opinion. zzz (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That Vox article is from their Identities section... aka a blog. Please read WP:RS to understand how reliable sources are determined. Also yes generally Vox is a RS, that does NOT mean they are reliable for everything. PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, try any of the other sources then. This article can continue to follow the Fox News line, or it can follow reliable sources, which will tell you that Trump's racist statements are "an important aspect", as you are well aware. And no sources contradict that, as you are equally well aware. zzz (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, zzz? Somebody's simple and perfectly defensible opinion becomes a "fringe theory" which "can be ignored"? Let's respect each other and just discuss, OK? --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Undue and not a major aspect of his life. PackMecEng (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose After years of discussion we recently added this to the article, where it occupies a subsection of three paragraphs. Considering how much more there is to say about him in this very full BLP, that one small section does not merit inclusion in the lede. That's based on how we normally choose what goes into the lede, and quite aside from the inflammatory nature of this kind of accusation, but that's also a consideration. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Too contentious for lead--Nonztp (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• I believe you are proposing adding this to the lede, Galobtter, where it would not be justified. This is not definitive of Trump. Such aspersions are merely cast by political opponents. Trump is vulnerable to such attacks because he has entered the fray in tendentious areas such as border control and immigration. Much of the world is non-white, thus politically-motivated allegations of racism are always on the table. But I don't think they are definitive of Trump. Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes in the lead (clarified proposal) Well no one is saying it is definitive of trump..just one aspect, important enough for the lead. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• 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
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment