Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:49, 21 June 2019

Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

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

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

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

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 Donald Trump presidency (2025 Q1) List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2025) Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Donald Trump on social media Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) Mueller Report …or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

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

This 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. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism 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

	Readership
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.

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. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 4, 2018). "Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Maak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone". Slate.

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 December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 9, 2018, and June 12, 2018. Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article

Other talk page banners

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. 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.

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (92 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,140 9,140 Early life and education 3,089 3,089 Business career 149 35,384 Real estate 4,555 15,956 Manhattan and Chicago developments 6,170 6,170 Atlantic City casinos 3,610 3,610 Clubs 1,621 1,621 Licensing the Trump name 1,364 1,364 Side ventures 7,220 7,220 Foundation 5,025 5,025 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,315 2,315 Wealth 3,355 3,355 Media career 3,445 5,107 The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice 1,662 1,662 Early political aspirations 4,457 4,457 2016 presidential election 18,733 18,733 First presidency (2017–2021) 1,512 175,053 First presidency early actions 1,722 1,722 Conflicts of interest 3,372 3,372 Domestic policy 20,094 20,094 Race relations 6,410 6,410 Pardons and commutations 2,574 2,574 Immigration 3,112 20,429 Travel ban 4,347 4,347 Family separation at the border 6,273 6,273 Mexico–United States border wall and government shutdown 6,697 6,697 Foreign policy 2,859 35,970 Trade 2,517 2,517 Russia 4,226 4,226 East Asia 21 10,653 China, Hong Kong, Taiwan 4,914 4,914 North Korea 5,718 5,718 Middle East 23 15,715 Afghanistan 3,042 3,042 Israel 2,637 2,637 Saudi Arabia 2,229 2,229 Syria 3,797 3,797 Iran 3,987 3,987 Personnel 8,705 8,705 Judiciary 4,174 4,174 COVID-19 pandemic 291 30,415 Initial response 7,145 7,145 White House Coronavirus Task Force 4,747 4,747 World Health Organization 2,673 2,673 Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 7,799 7,799 Political pressure on health agencies 2,690 2,690 Outbreak at the White House 2,667 2,667 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,403 2,403 Investigations 1,079 26,089 Financial 3,111 3,111 Russian election interference 6,491 6,491 FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,573 2,573 Mueller investigation 12,835 12,835 First impeachment 10,202 10,202 Second impeachment 3,385 3,385 2020 presidential election 34 23,357 Loss to Biden 6,907 15,674 Rejection of results 8,767 8,767 January 6 Capitol attack 7,649 7,649 Between presidencies (2021–2025) 5,214 25,243 Legal issues 21 20,029 Classified documents 4,973 4,973 2020 election 5,415 5,415 2016 campaign fraud case 3,165 3,165 Civil lawsuits and judgments 6,455 6,455 2024 presidential election 16,640 16,640 Second presidency (2025–present) 1,821 7,773 Second presidency early actions 3,989 3,989 Foreign policy 21 1,963 Trade 674 674 Middle East 20 1,268 Israel 1,248 1,248 Political practice and rhetoric 7,990 53,905 Racial and gender views 9,366 9,366 Link to violence and hate crimes 11,430 11,430 Conspiracy theories 3,317 3,317 Truthfulness 10,483 10,483 Social media 5,810 5,810 Relationship with the press 5,509 5,509 Personal life 18 6,946 Family 1,323 1,323 Health 3,697 3,697 Religion 1,908 1,908 Assessments 18 6,969 Public image 4,516 4,516 Scholarly rankings 2,435 2,435 Notes 136 136 References 30 30 Works cited 18 12,053 Books 3,216 3,216 Journals 8,819 8,819 External links 5,713 5,713 Total 409,728 409,728

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: oldest and wealthiest
• #RfC: False statements
• #Proposal for resolution to reduce the level of detail about his presidency

• 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: oldest and wealthiest

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: Politics, government, and law Biographies 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.

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Should the lead section mention that Trump is the "oldest and wealthiest" president? — JFG 15:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The current, longstanding phrase in paragraph 2 of the lead includes:

He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, and the first without prior military or government service.

I would suggest replacing this with:

He became the first president without prior military or government service.

In recent informal discussions, some editors have said those qualifiers are unimportant statistics best left to specialized articles such as List of presidents of the United States by age and List of Presidents of the United States by net worth instead of the lead section of Trump's BLP. It was also argued that "oldest" is ageist and "wealthiest" is vulgar, and that it all was "irrelevant trivia". In support of the inclusion, it was argued that those facts were well-covered during Trump's campaign, and that similar statistics appear in other presidents' biographies. This RfC aims to resolve the disagreement. — JFG 15:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey: oldest and wealthiest

Please express your preference with Keep to preserve the status quo or with Delete to remove the "oldest and wealthiest" qualifiers. A brief rationale is welcome here. Longer arguments should go to the #Discussion: oldest and wealthiest section.

• Delete - I remember "oldest" and "wealthiest" were talking points during the election, but I honestly don't think they are biographically significant. Nor are they defining characteristics of his presidency. This is exactly the kind of trimming I would like to see more of in this article. Less is always more. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete – While Trump's lack of military or government experience is relevant to his presidency, and apparently unprecedented in the USA, his age and his wealth are mere trivia. Reagan was old too, and Washington was filthy rich for his day. — JFG 17:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete not at all defining characteristics and not lead-worthy, especially compared to his actions in office, though including in article body wouldn't be so bad. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep to preserve the status quo, no real reason to mess with a long-standing 2 year norm and what little stability this article has. Also, oldest and wealthiest seem to follow precedents of identifying characteristics in past presidents such as age remarks for Ronald Reagan or youth and religion of John F. Kennedy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - this is interesting information. He is a lot older than his immediate predecessors (though only slightly older than Reagan was as President). He also seems to be a lot wealthier than other President, according to the linked table. This is worth noting.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete on second thoughts. These are simply relative measures that will be out of date sooner or later. He is not likely to be the oldest President for long, given the increases in longevity. Wealth is hard to measure over time, and this is not particularly notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - There is a long tradition to identify presidents according to records they hold in regards to their presidency. Ronald Reagan was widely reported to be the oldest back then, James Buchanan as the only bachelor to hold the office, John F. Kennedy as being the youngest to be elected and the only Catholic to be president, James Garfield as the last to be born in a log cabin etc. This sort of trivia exists for most presidents. One argument for deletion is that this information is well known to most readers because they refer to the current president, whose wealth and age are widely discussed in the media, but removing it now for being banal only to add it a few years later, when the information won't seem as obvious sounds unnecessary to me. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per JFG. Gandydancer (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - trivia. _Talk 📧 18:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The article Inauguration of Donald Trump conspicuously doesn't mention it, but that is not a reason to remove it here, because Presidency of Donald Trump#Transition period and inauguration mentions it (it is a WP:Summary style article). If anything, the Inauguration article should be changed to mention it in its lead. I believe that it should be kept here when similar leads, most notably that of Ronald Reagan, include such information. wumbolo ^^^ 21:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Although Reagan was much more well known for being the oldest president than Trump was, it still keeps things simple for the reader. The statements are neither trivial, nor do they add unnecessary fluff to the article that isn't notable or noteworthy.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Neither of these items has received nearly as much attention in the reliable sources as the rest of the content in the lead section. I understand these superlatives have historical significance, but I highly doubt Trump will be known in 5, 10, 50 years for being the wealthiest or oldest president. He will likely be known for bringing his business background to the White House, but that's something substantially different. To be clear, however, I fully support having this material in the body of our article. R2 (bleep) 19:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Wealth qualifier is unconfirmed. No reliable source. Gerntrash (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Oldest but delete wealthiest (Summoned by bot) His age is undeniable, his wealth is in dispute. Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I think those terms shouldn't stay in the paragraph, because belongs to the Peacock terms and afect to the neutral point of view.--AnbyG (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep oldest. Delete wealthiest. Ronald Reagan talks about oldest; seems like a fine precedent. Looking at the source for "wealthiest", it's nowhere near strong enough for the lead of an article about a President. The source's link for $525 million for Washington goes nowhere. And I'm skeptical of anyone's methodology for comparing wealth levels 240 years apart.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep oldest, delete wealthiest per Adoring nanny. —Compassionate727  19:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: oldest and wealthiest

@JFG: - some editors have opined that "oldest" is ageist and "wealthiest" is vulgar - Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't see more than one editor saying either. I'd ask that you edit that for accuracy. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You are right, and in fairness only one editor highlighted the comparison with Reagan, Kennedy and Roosevelt's biographies. The point is to show that those were arguments advanced in the discussion. I'll edit to avoid referring to a particular editor or group thereof. — JFG 15:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think oldest should be included because it was a common description for WH Harrison and Reagan. The "prior military or government service" is clumsy. All previous presidents had held either elected office as a congressman, senator or governor, or had served in the Cabinet or were generals. If Trump had worked as an election official, or had been in the National Guard, his lack of experience would still be relevant. Also, not sure if we was the wealthiest, particularly if inflation is taken into account. We don't even know if he has a positive net worth. TFD (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think "prior military or government service" was used in the media at the time. Does "government service" have a special meaning for Americans? Because I would have thought "military service" was "government service", and "government service" could include working as a clerk in the sanitation department.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I vaguely recall some discussion about this. Military service may be government service in some sense, but that doesn't mean Americans would interpret the term that way. We would normally think of people working in city halls, state capitals, and Washington, not in military bases and foreign countries. The military take direction from their government but serve their country, and they are not the same thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I also vaguely recall a discussion but I think it was more about whether what elected officials do should be called "service." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we could lift this ambiguity by replacing "service" with "experience". The target articles is called List of Presidents of the United States by previous experience. — JFG 19:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I rephrased the sentence to make it adhere more closely to the sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think, in general, statements about the "oldest" should be avoided. Given the steady increase in human longevity, we should expect US Presidents to be increasingly older and to live longer (like Jimmy Carter). This is not notable and not worth noting. However, in Trump's case he is significantly older than Obama etc. There has been speculation that this could be a factor in his Presidency, and he could be or become medically unfit.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jack Upland: There'll be older presidents sure, but if we're just going to have a list of presidents by age anyway, we might as well make mention of it in the current president's article. It's more about simplicity than anything in my opinion. It's not like the US presidents articles are filled with tons of trivia as is.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to prevent auto-archive of this section? starship.paint (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. See {{DNAU}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Now with easier-to-use {{pin section}}. — JFG 08:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: False statements

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: Politics, government, and law Biographies 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.

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

A recent discussion was archived without reaching a definite conclusion. Based on comments from various editors there, I am formally suggesting a change of the current wording, which was selected in the prior RfC about this subject, and is in my opinion unnecessarily wordy. — JFG 15:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Current version:

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

Proposed version:

Fact-checkers have documented an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during Trump's campaign and presidency.

— JFG 15:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Amended proposal:

Fact-checkers have documented that Trump made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.

I am putting forward this amended proposal following remarks by several editors in the first day of the RfC. — JFG 11:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey: false statements

Please express your preference to Support or Oppose the proposed change, with a brief rationale. Longer arguments should go to the #Discussion: false statements section.

• Oppose - Trump's falsehoods are a defining characteristic of his presidency. Without gazing too deeply into the crystal ball, I think the Trump presidency will forever be associated with an astonishing level of mendacity. As such, I like the way the existing text spells this out a bit more assertively. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  What happened to Less is always more? Seriously, I think a shorter sentence is more impactful in asserting the issue. — JFG 15:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Not at the expense of missing something important, obviously. Nothing is more important to Trump's biography than the thing that has defined him, and that's the fact that he likes to tell porky pies. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

In your proposed version the issue is that someone somewhere made a whole bunch of false or misleading statements while Trump was president. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have addressed this deficiency in the amended proposal above. — JFG 11:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Still oppose, I'm afraid. The existing text remains superior. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Too soon/Oppose - The passage in question is the result of an RfC that was open for more than a month a mere few months ago, focused exclusively on that little bit of content, and received over 10,000 words from over 30 editors. One of the precious few editors willing to spend their time doing uninvolved closes spent a considerable amount of it assessing that consensus and writing the close. The length of the passage was pointed out at the beginning of the proposal for it, lest anyone fail to consider it, and yet the passage received wide support. Thus the length argument has been duly rejected and it's not constructive to raise it again hoping for a different outcome. This is not how we should be spending our limited time. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The proposed wording obscures the fact that Trump made the false statements. That deviates far from almost every reliable source that has reported on the subject. We must be clear and direct. - MrX 🖋 16:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I also oppose the amended proposal because it shifts the focus to fact checkers. I would support Neutrality's proposal, or something like "Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency." - MrX 🖋 11:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support The laundry lists of Trumps alleged deceptions is what is unprecedented.--MONGO (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons states by Scjessey, Mandruss, and MrX, but I would favor a shorter "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency, at a level unprecedented in American politics" if someone proposed that. Neutrality 18:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality - the statement "at a level unprecedented in American politics" would have to be attributed, otherwise we'd be treading in SYNTH territory or opinion rather than fact. The kind of coverage Trump has gotten is what's unprecedented, otherwise I would imagine the same could be said of a few former presidents. _Talk 📧 18:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the reliable sources (not opinion pieces) directly support the "unprecedented" language, and this is a matter of fact rather opinion. Neutrality 17:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support — the current version attributes the assessment of unprecedented mendacity to the media, which plays into the "fake news" narrative (itself mendacious), while the proposed version attributes the assessment to fact-checkers. That said, Neutrality's proposed language would be even better. soibangla (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Doesn’t matter — Devoting so much contributor time to trivial matters like this contributes to outsiders’ perceptions of Misplaced Pages as largely dysfunctional on controversial subjects. Time to move on. Greg L (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too vague. I support Neutrality's version over both of the proposed versions by OP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - let’s not revisit it yet again and so soon. The change in portrayal also seems unnecessary and not preceded by groundwork. I think lead edits like this one should be a discussion first to show interests and concerns, not this every time jump straight to an A/B choice RFC that has not done substantial prep work in TALK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support — the new version is shorter, to the point, and more neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons stated by MrX, Scjessey, Mandruss, and Soibangla. I also think that Neutrality's version would be even better. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Following several remarks about the clarity of the sentence, I have amended the proposed text. @Scjessey, Mandruss, MrX, Neutrality, Snooganssnoogans, Markbassett, and Space4Time3Continuum2x: Could you reconsider your !votes in light of that? — JFG 11:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No. The current longer version is accurate while ascribing the conclusion "unprecedented" to fact-checkers is not. I don't think that at this stage we need to point out that "fact-checkers documented" and "the media described" but, if we do it, we should do it accurately. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This amended proposal also does not work for me for the reasons that Space4Time addressed above. I prefer my proposal above. Neutrality 14:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No, since mine is a process objection. The hard-won consensus content should be considered good enough that we can better spend this time on other things. That will always be my position in situations like this. Thanks for the ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support for conciseness. — JFG 11:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  I would also support "Media and academics have documented that…", per discussion below following Starship.paint's comments. — JFG 08:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to above proposed version - to say that Fact-checkers ... documented ... an unprecedented number is inaccurate. As one can see from the sources already in the article at Donald Trump#False statements (that's 305-315 at the time of this post, none of the sources describing unprecedented are fact-checkers. / / / / / / / Rather, they are academics or the media. I would instead add to the lede that The statements have been documented by fact-checkers; academics and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Alternatively, Neutrality's version is also okay. starship.paint (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  After discussion with JFG below in the Discussion section, a version I would support is Media and academics have documented that Trump made an unprecedented number of false and misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. starship.paint (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Honestly, I don't think the difference is that large between the two version, but while we're here, the proposed version has a small edge over the current one. This is mainly because it's more concise and because saying that something "was described by the media" gives fodder to the "fake news" crowd who will claim that this is a conspiracy against the president by the news media, rather than demonstrable and well documented facts. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - it says what needs to be said succinctly and in compliance with NPOV. _Talk 📧 16:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Neutrality offers a good choice for wording and Starship gives some good advise as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - It's important to stay neutral. The current way seems like it's "Bashing" Trump. I don't care if you like or hate the man, the wording needs to be neutral.Gregnator (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Account^ created on the day the vote was cast. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - current wording is clearer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - If the wording must be more precise, Neutrality's proposal is the most favorable and accurate. Teammm 
  _email 01:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the amended wording is less wordy and more neutral; yet still tries to convey the same meaning without trying to color the reader's opinion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Conveys the same information more concisely and with more punch, which is always a good thing in such a dense article. Also slightly reduces the Trump-versus-the-media framing, which is contrary to our core policies. R2 (bleep) 19:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: the original language is preferable; it's less weasely and matches sources better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I prefer the original wording. The new proposal obscures the fact that Trump made the false statements, as noted by MrX. --Tataral (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The original wording looks to reflect the sourcing. — Rhododendrites \\ 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – The section itself needs rewriting for less-wooden style, to indicate depth of issue without details and statistics that already have an article devoted to them. Trump’s cavalier attitude toward facts, in the real estate development scene (Bonwit Teller site, Trump International Toronto) as well as during his presidency, could be summarized with one or two full-length sentences.Jessegalebaker (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • - Note: 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 has made few or no other edits outside this article. _Talk 📧 17:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot)Support as it's more concise. While I agree that stripped of context and put side by side, the new version seems less strongly worded because Trump is not the subject noun of the sentence, keep in mind that this sentence is currently buried in the middle of a paragraph where every other sentence begins with either "Trump" or "He" (meaning Trump). _signed, Rosguill 04:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The subject is the falsehoods, and it does not matter who discovered/checked/compiled them, if he did it, and it is documented, then we say it. Trump called someone "nasty", then denied it claiming "fake news" - It was recorded and had been on national news the day before he denied it ever happened. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: false statements

JFG, you made this proposal. Can you explain your decision to limit the description of an unprecedented number to fact-checkers, when the body of the article (and the sources) doesn't actually say that fact-checkers have said that? starship.paint (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The original sentence says three things: 1) fact-checkers have documented a bunch of false and misleading statements by Trump; 2) the magnitude and raw count of false and misleading statements is unprecedented; 3) media have been pounding on this issue. My proposed version aims to simplify this state of affairs, and the original long-winded phrase, by focusing on points 1 and 2. You raise the issue that it's only media and academics that have used the "unprecedented" qualifier, I wasn't aware of that, and I'm pretty sure we can find fact-checker sources that use similar language. If I'm mistaken, then perhaps we should replace "unprecedented" with some other qualifier (staggering? unusual? unfathomable? just large?), but that would be a different discussion. — JFG 19:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you want to simplify the sentence, but it seems it has lost its original meaning. I think fact-checkers are a subset of the media, and I don’t think there is very many of them that actively track Trump, probably less than seven? So I don’t see why we need to focus on fact-checkers when the wider media, plus the academics, have already given their descriptions. That’s already assuming you can find enough fact-checker sources to establish DUE weight. I note that there are two fact checker sources above (Kessler/Toronto’s Dale) but instead of putting unprecedented in their voice, they chose to quote other people. starship.paint (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it’s basically three stating overall totals - Politifact of Tampa Bay Times, FactCheck.org of Annenberg center, and the Fact Checker of the Washington Post. The Toronto Star is also a player at a lower prominence. Not an really documented in detail or described methods. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Well okay, but if you were to look below, the sources in this article saying unprecedented aren't these three publications. starship.paint (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mythdon: - could you read the below comment, thank you. starship.paint (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla, Jack Upland, PraiseVivec, Atsme, and Gregnator: - per your support votes, have you guys actually checked this article and the sources as to whether JFG's version is even accurate? In the sources from the article, which you can find below, they do not say Fact-checkers ... documented ... an unprecedented number. starship.paint (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That’s a good catch, hadn’t noticed that. I’m striking my vote for now. soibangla (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the academic sources for unprecedented: paper by Carole McGranahan, quote from "historians", quote from Michael R. Beschloss, quote from "White House scholars and other students of government" and George Edwards, quote from Douglas Brinkley, paper by Heidi Taksdal Skjeseth, paper by Donnel Stern. Which of these are fact checkers? starship.paint (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the journalists / writer for media sources for unprecedented: Chris Cillizza, Susan Glasser, Maria Konnikova. Which of these are fact checkers? starship.paint (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I hear you. So would you support "Media and academics have documented that Trump made an unprecedented number of false and misleading statements during his campaign and presidency"? I kept fact-checkers in there because they were prominently featured in arguments during the prior RfC. I'm personally fine putting Trump's statements in wikivoice instead of attributing them to anybody, but that would surely get much-stronger pushback. It's hard to achieve neutrality without weaseling. — JFG 11:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: - I would support that. It does reflect the current body. By the way, I just found one fact-checker source on his unprecedented falsehoods as a presidential candidate. If you restart this ... consider wikivoice as a third option. starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Good. I think this RfC is now too far underway to change anything, especially not adding a third option. But you could perhaps qualify your "strong oppose" in the survey section by stating that you would support the "media and academics" variant that we just discussed. I'll mention it next to my !vote as well. — JFG 08:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Done, added just below my vote. starship.paint (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Me too. 🤝 — JFG 08:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Investigations

Has there been discussion previously of developing the "Investigations of Donald Trump" page, which currently redirects to this article? The NYT reported there were 29 open investigations as of May 2019. Would it make sense to retitle that "Investigations of President Donald Trump?Farcaster (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a notable topic in itself. Feel free to start a dedicated article, if you've got the energy. — JFG 21:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes @Farcaster:, there was a discussion either on this page or his presidency's page, but apparently nobody has the time or energy to do so. starship.paint (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The tricky thing is that it's hard to find content that would be in scope. Most of the content that editors might think of is about investigations into Trump's associates, not verifiably about Trump himself. There has been some recent discussion about this at User talk:BullRangifer/sandbox/Surveillance of Donald Trump and associates. R2 (bleep) 17:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I would think due the reality of the numerous investigations there should be an article on them..with a link in this one...it would be absurd to argue they are not relevant...the one paragraph blurb barely glosses over them and links only to timelines of the investigations rather than the investigations themselves...the belief that this is some kind of minor footnote is ridiculous...a link to a link is not good enough. 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Did anyone say that it would be not relevant or that it should be some kind of minor footnote? R2 (bleep) 17:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn`t say they did..what I said is I don`t see a summery of some kind regarding these investigations and a link to a new inclusive article regarding them..this is news and relevant...a lot people see these investigations as extremely relevant as a whole but are not going to spend hours sifting through various articles in order to get to the truth...There needs to be a separate article on Misplaced Pages about this with..and this is just as important...a link to it here...I support the creation of a new article. 2600:1702:2340:9470:2988:F2AB:2919:37CC (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The proposed title is unclear. Do we include the word "President"? (None of the other dozens of articles about him include it in the title.) Does "of" mean investigations into DT, or investigations by DT (like the ones he has ordered William Barr to start)? Does it mean just him personally, or does it include his business? his foundation? his family? his associates? I really don't think we are ready to launch such a page until we agree on what it will cover. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It should cover all criminal investigations against him and anything or anyone associated with him. 2600:1702:2340:9470:5035:7312:706E:A981 (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Only criminal? What about ethical? What about congressional oversight? What about an impeachment inquiry if there is one? (Actually that would be covered in our existing article, Efforts to impeach Donald Trump.) -- MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Oh, and don't forget we already have an article about the Mueller investigation. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Moving content from this article

I would like to bring attention to some of the excessive detail that we have on this article. For example in the early life section, the last two paragraphs are about events that have happened in the last ten years, although they reflect on his early life. They don't appear to belong on this article, but removing this content from Misplaced Pages altogether seems like censorship so I'm hesitant to take that step. Ideally this article would be more like Barack Obama, generally regarded as a good article, where most sections are essentially summaries of sub-articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: support splitting this up, but not removing completely - I've had similar thought recently --DannyS712 (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I would start with something like Early life of Donald Trump, and moving more of the content here to the subarticle about his business career, which should probably be combined with the article about his wealth. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The last paragraph probably doesn't belong in this article. The second to the last paragraph does, but it can be be shortened.- MrX 🖋 12:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Article size

Within a space of 24 hours, the article has been tagged as {{too long}} and we exceeded the template limits yet again (see archives for history). We still have either 20 months or 68 months to go and this problem is not going away for some time.

The {{too long}} template message suggests we consider splitting, condensing, or adding subheadings (unclear how the latter makes an article shorter). Short of moving the bottom half of the article to Donald Trump, page 2, I see no way to split that hasn't already been done. As I see it, that leaves two options:

1. Scalpel approach. Every time we exceed the template limit, drop one or more non-citation templates as was done here today. Or find some prose to remove with its associated citation templates.
2. Chainsaw approach. This being the top-level biography, remove the recentist near-daily chronology of politics and government and stop adding that kind of content.

Support #2 as far easier, while making a lot of sense anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I assume the "page 2" proposal has been made in jest. We absolutely should not have the daily chronology of politics on this article, as you say. There's also frankly too much prose in this article as well, because more keeps getting added without anything being removed or replaced. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I support the spirit of #2, but editors will have different opinions about what's important and what's not. We can't just delete recent information if it's important. WP:RECENTISM should be seen as a guiding principal, not a rule.- MrX 🖋 12:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we should be able to reach a consensus endorsing a "resolution" that content related to his 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. That would clearly exclude "Trump also praised Poland under the EU-skeptic, anti-immigrant Law and Justice party (PiS) as a defender of Western civilization." Merely removing that and everything like it, and pointing to the consensus whenever somebody attempts to add something new like it, would in my opinion solve the size issues for the remainder of his presidency. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution would not apply, but I don't think there would be any editors claiming that the example given is likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. And nobody would call it summary-level in any case. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree to this, without the need for a specific resolution. I think we can exercise judgement here and let editors remove what they see fit to remove along these lines, and restore it if there is disagreement. In general anything that looks like it was added to the article the day that it happened doesn't belong on the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That's essentially no change to what we have now, which is what got us to where we are now. I would have already done tons of BOLD removals (and BRD reverts of additions, to the small extent allowed by ArbCom), but I knew that would be seen as disruptive without a group agreement that those removals move the article in the right direction. It would also consume an inordinate amount of time debating the principle at the detail level, one removal at a time. I therefore strongly oppose that approach. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You waited for a BOT to announce this page was too long to finally agree something must be done about it? You restored totally tangential material that exists solely to malign Trump supporters and has nearly zero to do with this BLP. You recently argued that there is no reason things cannot appear verbatim in not only this article but in 3,4,5 other daughter articles as well, which totally defeats the purpose of having daughter articles. Are you considering forking numerous sections or just trimming the fat? For the record, the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama featured articles are 300K and 340K respectively and this one, which isn't even within a hope and prayer of being rated a Good Article, much less a featured one is just over 450K.--MONGO (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Please look for a fight elsewhere, we're trying to have a constructive discussion here. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I really am not looking for a fight, but I do want to hear how you plan on trimming this when the opposite has been true Mandruss...do you want help or is this just talk? Can you pick sections in particular you think need to be trimmed or moved whole or in part to daughter articles or perhaps new articles?--MONGO (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Language like do you want help or is this just talk? belies your claim that you are not looking for a fight. Of course I want to help, and of course this is not just talk. I gave one illustrative example, and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to extrapolate that to the numerous other examples like it. I think you've largely missed the gist of my comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Last few times I tried to keep some of the recentism at bay and keep this article from spinning out of control it simply led to nonstop arguments and some of the worst lack of AGF I have ever encountered on this website. So lets say I start cleaning up things, am I once again going to have to explain every single adjustment?--MONGO (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Well gosh, that sounds a lot like what I said here, so shouldn't we be on the same side on this? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Lets look at the Barack Obama article, a Featured level article. It has roughly 500 sources...and I think that is excessive, but this one has over 900 sources. Kbs are also based on the space taken up by sources, so one way the "fat" can be trimmed right off without losing content is to simply dump the less authoritative reliable sources and especially, unless something has been totally in nonstop dispute, cease backing it up with 4,5 6 separate sources, many of which only parrot what the primary source says anyway. One might be able to trim 25-30K just by a mass reduction of redundancy in sources.--MONGO (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes! More sauce, fewer sources! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we could certainly trim redundant sources starting with the less reputable ones first. However, it is incumbent upon any editor removing sources to make absolutely sure that the remaining source(s) fully verifies the article text as written.- MrX 🖋 16:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I’d just like to say that if you remove information, can you check whether it is already present in a sub-article or a related article. If no, insert it there. Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I support removal of whatever falls under RECENTISM, has no lasting value, and/or represents yada yada opinions & gossip that are not supported by corroborated factual information. The article is not a summary; rather, it's more like a scrapbook of news articles. _Talk 📧 15:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this article is not well constructed, since it has way too much throughout that is unnecessary. For example, the start of the article lists dozens of his policies, when that is not something necessary in the lede. His travel ban was major, but that was over two years ago, and it is no longer a large issue either way. Same goes for a lot of other fluff that belongs in separate articles. BobRoberts14 (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

The lede is absolutely the last place to begin cutting, and also by far the most difficult. There's a ton of low hanging fruit in sections on early life, family, religion, his business career, the election, and his presidency to trim away at first. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I still believe the lede needs to be cut, because some of the policies aren't as major as policies that aren't even in the lede. Obama's policy part of the lede is as long as Donald Trump's, even though Obama was president for six more years. BobRoberts14 (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

It`s spelled lead...this has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama...Support #1..there is nothing in this article that supposedly isn`t in by concensus..one step at a time..keep what is relevant..add what is relevant. 2600:1702:2340:9470:5035:7312:706E:A981 (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for resolution

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.

• Support as proposer, and per my comments in the preceding subsection. I ask those who haven't read them to do so, as they comprise my argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I agree that this article needs to be trimmed in many areas, and certain parts of the need to be removed and/or replaced with more important information. BobRoberts14 (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14
• Support the resolution. If only this could apply to all biographies! The problem I see is that "likely to have a lasting impact" is a judgement call that requires peering into a crystal ball somewhat. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think the following will require a judgment call to remove per the resolution: "Trump also praised Poland under the EU-skeptic, anti-immigrant Law and Justice party (PiS) as a defender of Western civilization." It isn't even summary-level. Just eliminating all the things like that will yield a very significant reduction in article size. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support as common sense. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:5035:7312:706E:A981 (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Struck double vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm against the creation of local guidelines in general. Decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis based on global community standards. R2 (bleep) 16:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  We have 35 local guidelines at #Current consensus, and they are quite useful to have. A local guideline doesn't become unuseful when it has a broader scope. The material affected by this resolution doesn't need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and it's already been stated that anything that's debatable isn't affected.Orthodoxy has its place, but it needs to be justifiable beyond general aphorisms and "that's how it's always been done". Innovate, don't stagnate. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Those aren't local guidelines. I disagree with that approach; it would just lead to procedural trouble down the road when decisions are being made about specific content. R2 (bleep) 22:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's looking like it will pass, so we will get to test the accuracy of your crystal ball. Some (including me, to some extent) were concerned about problems that might be created by the consensus list, and it turned out that the concerns were unfounded. Anything can be reversed or modified if it doesn't work out—the sky won't fall in that case—and risk aversion is one of the project's worst problems. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Create the article...include any and all referenced material..trump`s opinion of Poland, the EU and immigration is political not personal..the defender of western civilization assertion is more related to the mental health section in the health of trump article..it`s an absurd assertion. 2600:1702:2340:9470:FD62:44DA:A0F8:8960 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - though I’d suggest switch ‘likely to have lasting’ judgement into ‘has shown lasting’ of objective facts. I’m an advocate for at least a 48 hour waiting period before hot story du jour tries for an edit, at least on new stories. The insert on the same-day that a new topic breaks seems just impossible to know what WEIGHT it will have, or what additional material will show up. Generally though I agree and suggest an approach from the positive side, set norms on ‘what kinds of topic’ and ‘what level’ definitely fits to guide now and in the future. A series of individual cuts also good. Markbassett (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the article includes far too much detailed information about his presidency, much of which fails lasting value, and I'll briefly mention that we already have a Presidency of Donald Trump article and several forks. We've created Trumpapedia. _Talk 📧 18:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support --v/r - TP 23:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time because it's too early to say exactly what will have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy, and what constitutes borderline or debatable will be endlessly debated. Let's wait and see. soibangla (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Soibangla: Sue me for the WP:BLUDGEON vio.

  Trump also praised Poland under the EU-skeptic, anti-immigrant Law and Justice party (PiS) as a defender of Western civilization.

  Would you say that it's too early to say whether that will have a "lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy"? Really? Do you think it will be endlessly debated whether it's borderline or debatable? If not, I reiterate (again) that that and other things like it are the only things affected by this resolution.Regardless, on the off chance that something like this is removed, and it subsequently proves to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy, it can be added back once the lasting impact reveals itself. The article is not a repository for items of unlikely but theoretically possible long-term impact. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Indeed this article should not be a day-by-day compilation of Trump uttering blah and talking heads uttering OMG, Trump said blah. Sure, assessing what is indeed impactful rather than a story-du-jour may require some editorial judgment calls, but that's our job as encyclopedists. — JFG 03:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  I wrote an essay about a year ago that addresses this exact point. WP:TRUMPHATE.--v/r - TP 03:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Policies in the Lede

In my opinion, the section on Trump's policies in the lede is way too long and needs to be cut back. It's about the size of Obama's policies in the lede, except Trump has been president for two years and Obama was for eight. His travel ban isn't even that major of a policy anymore, as I stated before, and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel did not have much of an effect on anything, it was almost completely formal (other than moving the US embassy, but Israel's political buildings are mostly in Tel Aviv). Banning transgender soldiers from the military only removed a few thousand soldiers, and although it was controversial, it still wasn't that major of a policy, since they were banned from the military already until 2016, and Obama's reversal of the Don't Act Don't Tell policy wasn't in the lede of his article. What I am saying is, whether or not you agree with these policies (I personally don't agree with some of his policies, such as the ban on transgender soldiers), I think these policies can be removed and replaced with larger ones. For example, he has placed more sanctions on Venezuela and Russia, and also proposed withdrawing soldiers from the Middle East, among many other policies. But for now, the less major ones should just be removed, since they are placed later in the article anyways. BobRoberts14 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

I think it highly unlikely any of this will happen in the near future. Trimming the article (per the thread above) is of paramount importance, and editors should focus on that for the time being. Changes to the lede are highly controversial, with almost every single word negotiated in epic, exhausting discussions lasting for days and weeks. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not it would be difficult isn't the question though. What I am saying is that the lede includes some policies that are not very important compared to some others. I am saying certain policies that were put in place over two years ago and did not do as much as others should be left in other sections, and instead replaced with newer, larger policies. BobRoberts14 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

I don't think we should be looking solely at net policy impact to decide whether a policy should be included in the lead section. Some policies are important because they have political or some other historical significance, not because they had some significant boots-on-the-ground effect. I don't think that sanctions on Venezuela or Russia or troop withdrawals from the Middle East have as much much historical significance, relatively speaking, as what's currently there. Also, the Russia sanctions aren't Trump's policy, so including them would be highly misleading. R2 (bleep) 18:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump did increase sanctions on Russia, that just wasn't his main policy, so I agree that it shouldn't be in the lead. I was just giving examples of other policies. His sanctions on Venezuela affected billions of dollars though, and withdrawing thousands of troops from the Middle East is most certainly major. BobRoberts14 (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Trump increased sanctions on Russia? Sources please. R2 (bleep) 22:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/03/trump-signs-russia-sanctions-bill-moscow-calls-it-trade-war.html and also https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/new-russia-sanctions-will-likely-target-oligarchs-close-putin-n862996 BobRoberts14 (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Ha, that's a pretty gross misrepresentation. The first source you cite says Trump grudgingly signed the 2017 bill, which conflicted with his desires, because he knew that a veto would be overridden. The second source is about the April 2018 sanctions, which Trump himself resisted. We are not going to say anything about sanctions on Russia, in the lead or anywhere else, without conveying this information. R2 (bleep) 22:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

First off, you can't say that he didn't do something because he didn't want to. Second, I already said that it is too minor to belong in the lede, so your not contributing anything by repeating that. I was just giving an example of one of his policies. BobRoberts14 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Just because he did something (unwillingly) doesn't make it one of his policies. But you're right, this is effectively moot. R2 (bleep) 22:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'm not going to take advice from someone who argues with admins and literally says "Go the fuck away for 24 hours, you stupid excuse of an admin." BobRoberts14 (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Nice one. R2 (bleep) 23:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Merger of Health of Donald Trump

A deletion discussion has resulted in a consensus to merge Health of Donald Trump here. I propose that this merger should include all content in that article cited to sources generally considered to be reliable sources. Thoughts? bd2412 T 23:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be better off in a different article, such as a longer one called "Personal Life of Donald Trump" that includes a lot of the extra information from the "Family and personal life" section of his current article. The "Family and personal life" section of his article is far too long, especially compared to other presidents, and it could be its own article and combined with the Health of Donald Trump. BobRoberts14 (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

• Oppose for the reasons mentioned in the close. Hopefully we don't have to get a review of the close because there were too many that said drop the armchair analysis and leave only the valid medical diagnosis based on an actual examination. _Talk 📧 00:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Adding - BD2412, your edit summary: (→‎Health of Donald Trump: I am amenable to the compromise proposal TParis has made above to convert this into an article specifically on the phenomenon of a substantial number of mental health professionals making claims about a specific patient that they have not examined, and the response of the APA and other governing bodies to that practice.) _Talk 📧 01:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Send to Personal life of Donald Trump, along with content from here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy close We had this discussion, BD2412. Jo-Jo's closure rationale summed up the consensus that only some of the material gets copied per WP:BLP, WP:MEDRS and WP:GOSSIP. Restarting this discussion and hoping for a different result is disruptive.--v/r - TP 01:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The outcome of the discussion was merge. The question now is what, specifically, should be merged. bd2412 T 01:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That's an oversimplification of the result. A simplification that favors you. The full closure states "there seems to be a consensus that some of the material should be covered somewhere (such as in Donald Trump)". The entire 4th paragraph covers this. The final statement in that paragraph states "That does not rule out that content could be copied into other articles if need be, of course." which supports my interpretation because this sentence would be unnecessary if the closer intended to read consensus as "merge all".--v/r - TP 02:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I didn't say "merge all". I proposed to merge "all content in that article cited to sources generally considered to be reliable sources". Anything in the article that is not reliably sourced should, of course, be excluded from any merge. bd2412 T 03:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
        • You literally said "I propose that this merger should include all content in that article," in other words, "merge all". All of that does not belong in his main article. Bob Roberts 03:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
          • If you stopped reading the sentence at that point, you missed out on a pretty important qualification. bd2412 T 04:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry, BD2412, but that explanation doesn't make sense. All content on Misplaced Pages needs to be cited to reliable sources. Especially on a BLP and especially with regards to medical information about a BLP and especially in areas of discretionary sanctions. If there was any content that wasn't connected to a RS, then we all should've removed it already. So, I have a hard time understanding what you think the delta is between what was in that article and what is reliably sourced. In this case, "all reliably sourced content" and "all content" should be synonymous. So, it seems to me that you do want to copy all content. My argument is that despite the reliable sourcing, much of this is speculation and gossip and isn't suitable for a encyclopedia - especially not with regard to medical information. That's why I am okay with having the content in another context, but not in the context of Donald Trump's health. It's not responsible of us as editors to do that.--v/r - TP 11:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The article Health of Donald Trump has way too much fluff, including a ton of speculation. The article should have just been deleted, and a small amount of the information should be included here, or in a new article called "Personal Life of Donald Trump", since his section has far more than that of any other President, especially when including sub-articles. Including "all the content" would increase this article's length way too much, and make his health seem more important than any of the other Personal Life sub-sections. Bob Roberts 01:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• I would agree with having a Personal life of Donald Trump article, with the health information being included there. Health information can be condensed to a more summary style, but it is still worth mentioning that the various health assessments that have been made have, in fact, been made and responded to. There have been several occasions where Trump has assessed his own mental health, verbally or by tweet, as being a "stable genius". He has not said these things in a vacuum. bd2412 T 01:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that his health is important, but there is far too much information in the Health of Donald Trump article to include it all in the article Donald Trump. Much of it is just trivial information that is not very important. Bob Roberts 01:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Triviality is, to a degree, a matter of opinion. I think, for example, that it is a notable historical fact that Trump is clinically obese - the first clinically obese President since William Howard Taft (Clinton was close, but his BMI never rose from the "overweight" to the "obese" category), and one of only six clinically obese Presidents in U.S. history (the others were Taft, Teddy Roosevelt, William McKinley, Grover Cleveland, and Zachary Taylor). I don't think that it is necessary to include all of the third-party mental health assessments, but it is worth mentioning that a number of mental health professionals have made negative assessments, for which they were criticized by their governing body, and that Trump's response was to state on several occasions that he was a stable genius. bd2412 T 03:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Notability isn't a matter of opinion though. It should depend on how important the reliable sources consider that to be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

First off, did Misplaced Pages just have an update? I previously only saw white and black while editing in source editor, but now I also see other colors, such as blue, green, and purple. Second, I did not say the entire article is trivial, I said that most of it is. More than half the article is just repeating the same things: trump's physicians said he does not have any problems, most psychiatrists believe he is narcissistic, and he is obese. Bob Roberts 03:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

We have generally determined notability based on whether something is in fact independently reported in multiple reliable sources. How important is it? Well, there are plenty of notable people whose health reliable sources generally do not comment on at all, unless something drastic happens (for example, there is currently substantial reporting on the health of David Ortiz, who was recently shot, and I think everyone would agree that his health status after being shot is now a notable piece of information to include in the article). As I said, I have no problem condensing the several paragraphs of armchair psychiatry down to a single sentence indicating that this is what third-party mental health experts have tended to say. bd2412 T 04:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• (Closing admin of the AFD on the Health of Donald Trump article) On request on my talk page, I've amended the closing statement on the AFD a little; people in this discussion might be interested in it. One consideration is that people have been concerned that normal reliable sources might not necessarily be reliable in this context of medical information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: - re "the good material supported by top-notch sources", just for clarification, would "top-notch sources" include any of the following: CNN, BBC News, NBC News, Fox News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Hill, The New Yorker, Time, Vox, Vanity Fair, Mother Jones, The New Republic, Forbes, The Independent, U.S. News, The Atlantic, and Psychology Today? bd2412 T 12:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The discussion didn't specify any source, but I'd probably be wary of all news media. They are typically not very good sources for specific medical information. Also anything overly trivial, gossipy or based on armchair analysis as these are the things that have raised concerns in the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Trump's mental health was the topic e.g. of the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump by 27 leading psychiatrists and psychologists. Many articles published in news media describe the assessments of such experts. Obviously we shouldn't use random news media as sources for "specific medical information", the issue here is more about expert assessment of publicly available information than about "specific medical information" as that term is typically understood. --Tataral (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• There is already consensus to merge the content into this article so the opposes and speedy closes here are without effect.- MrX 🖋 12:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. It has already been decided that the article on his health is to be merged into this article. If anyone opposes that decision they will need to bring it up at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. I myself opposed merging the articles and argued that most of the health material belongs in a sub article rather than the main article, but evidently most editors didn't agree with that and thought the material should be covered here. So now we need to include the material of that article somewhere here. The bulk of the material, that is also the most relevant and that has the best references, is about his mental health, an extremely notable topic that has received an extreme amount of very high-quality coverage (there are no books or scholarly works on his physical health, which is regarded as a somewhat trivial and unremarkable topic of little relevance for his conduct as president or his policies). --Tataral (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support merge with caveats - surely local consensus here trumps whatever was decided at the other article? At a time when we are desperately trying to find ways to trim the article, we don't need a bunch of health cruft dumped in here as well. We need to be extremely choosy about what we include, regardless of the outcome of that deletion discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Cmt: It wasn't really decided "at article" but as part of the wider and more public AfD process, and there is an established way to appeal an AfD decision: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. I think the decision was wrong and that the vast majority of the material belongs in a separate sub article and not here, precisely because we're trying to trim the article, but that's the decision that was made. --Tataral (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @@Scjessey: Just ignore Tataral. He's ignoring consensus at the AfD which was to only merge some. That's in line with how you feel as well.--v/r - TP 21:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      • There is an established procedure for you to appeal the decision to merge if you disagree with it: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Otherwise I suggest that you knock it off. --Tataral (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't disagree with the close. I disagree with your interpretation of it. Jo-Jo is very clear that the consensus is that only some of the material gets merged. You're intentionally disregarding that bit and I am tempted to take you to WP:AE over your blatant disregard for it. I have no need for deletion review because my reading of Jo-Jo's close takes their entire closure into context.--v/r - TP 01:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - being deleted largely because of material not worth having in a daughter article, much less deserving of a more prominent position here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Health and lifestyle proposal

I propose this as a merge/replacement for the current content under 'Health and lifestyle'. I trimmed some of the existing material to keep the size roughly the same.

Since the early days of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, his physical and mental health have been a subject of public debate. Trump was seventy years old when he took office, surpassing Ronald Reagan as the oldest person to assume the presidency. Comments on his age, weight and lifestyle have raised questions about his physical health.

Trump does not drink alcohol, a reaction to his older brother Fred Trump Jr.'s alcoholism and early death. He has stated that he has never smoked cigarettes or used drugs, including marijuana. He avoids tea and coffee, but fast food is a favorite cuisine of his. Trump has said he prefers three to four hours of sleep per night.

In December 2015, Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a superlative-laden letter of health, which stated that if elected, Trump "will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency". Bornstein noted that Trump had an appendectomy at age 10, but made no mention of the bone spurs that Trump and his campaign said caused his medical deferment from the military at age 22. According to Bornstein in 2018, Trump himself had dictated the contents of the December 2015 letter. A follow-up letter by Bornstein in September 2016 showed Trump's blood pressure, liver and thyroid functions to be in normal ranges, and that he takes a statin for high cholesterol levels. Bornstein, who had been Trump's physician since 1980, later said that three Trump representatives, including Trump's longtime bodyguard Keith Schiller, had taken all of Trump's medical records from Bornstein's office in February 2017.

In January 2018, Trump was examined by White House physician Ronny Jackson, who stated that he was in excellent health and that his cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues, although his weight and cholesterol level were higher than recommended. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle, and LDL cholesterol level ought to have raised serious concerns about his cardiac health. In February 2019, Trump underwent another physical examination; White House physician Sean Conley said Trump was in "very good health overall", although Trump was now clinically obese, at 243 lb (110 kg) with a BMI of 30.4. Trump's 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he has a form of heart disease called coronary artery disease, which is common for white males at his age.

Numerous public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals have speculated that Donald Trump may have mental health challenges, ranging from narcissistic personality disorder to some form of dementia. In October 2017, Bandy X. Lee published The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, containing essays from 27 psychologists, psychiatrists, and mental health professionals on the "clear and present danger" that Trump's mental health poses to the "nation and individual well being". They argued that the President's issues affected the mental health of the United States population, and that he placed the country at grave risk of war because of his pathological traits. They defined Trump's behavior in terms of psychiatric diseases., such as narcissistic personality disorder.

- MrX 🖋 14:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

ETA: Added two full sources as requested by MelanieN and removed second WL of narcissistic personality disorder.- MrX 🖋 18:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. That looks like a reasonable proposal. --Tataral (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support with caveats - Yes, a very good bit of work, that. Nicely done, MrX. I'm thinking that last paragraph might need a little bit of fettling though. The double mention (and linking) of narcissistic personality disorder should probably be altered, but otherwise it's real close to being there. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, in agreement with the caveats suggested by MrX. Narcissistic personality disorder need only be mentioned once, so I would end the last sentence after "in terms of psychiatric diseases". I would include Trump's reply, repeatedly describing himself as a "stable genius" in January 2018,, July 2018, and May 2019. bd2412 T 17:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support with the minor modifications suggested above. I think that's a good and defensible addition. It leaves out almost all of the speculation and commentary and opinion about his mental health, and that's a GOOD thing. Several people pointed out at the deletion discussion, and the closer reiterated above, that any medical information might have to pass the strict requirements of MEDRS, not just our usual RS requirements. Virtually nothing in the to-be-merged article meets that criterion, so a brief summary like this is the best approach. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC) P.S. Could you please provide the full citations for references 22 and 23? I would like to propose a reworking of the last two sentences and I need to know what the sources say. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the citations. Give me a little time, those are very poor references. I want to see if I can find something better and more current for this material. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support MrX's proposed change. Looks good to me.--v/r - TP 19:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with MelanieN's version too.--v/r - TP 20:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Covers the main events from various sources. I'd cut down on the Bornstein story, though; it feels tabloid-like. We can do that after the merge. — JFG 20:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No doctor of any repute would render a judgement on something like Narcissistic personality disorder without performing numerous and likely confidential one-on-ones with the subject. Therefore, these are opinions from afar, and akin to when similar doctors tried to label GWBush as a Dry Drunk, it was 14 years ago during that argument on that article that such things were determined to be suitable for a mainline BLP, and I really don't think such speculation belongs on this website at all. Not only did Dry Drunk not withstand the test of time, this type of judgement from afar won't either. Dry Drunk isn't even linked to any page now related to GWBush......yet back then there was a big row over whether it woudl appear in the article even including a Rfc on that content.--MONGO (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't find the quotes right now, but somewhere it was stated that mental diagnosis nowadays relies much less on in-depth interviews with the patient and much more on observing the patient's functioning and behavior. That goes along with what I have read about changes in the approach to psychotherapy - that it has been moving away from deep psychoanalysis toward simply helping the person to improve their functioning, attitudes, and quality of life. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have spent some time researching this and getting additional and more current/authoritative sources. Most of the sources from the article we are merging were from 2017 or earlier. I also added Trump's own opinion of his mental health. So I have a revised proposal for the last paragraph:

Numerous public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals have speculated that Trump may have mental health challenges. The most common diagnosis cited is narcissistic personality disorder; some cite delusional disorder; some suggest some form of early dementia. In April 2017 more than 25,000 mental health professional signed a letter stating that in their professional judgement, "Donald Trump they believe Trump "manifests serious mental illness". that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States." In October 2017, psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee published The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, containing essays from 27 psychologists, psychiatrists, and mental health professionals on the danger they believe that Trump's mental health poses to the nation and to individual well being. They argued that the president's issues affected the mental health of the United States population, and that he placed the country at grave risk of war because of his mental traits. Trump has dismissed questions regarding his mental health, saying that he is a "very stable genius" and that he has "one of the great memories of all time".

Sources

Alford, Henry (November 11, 2015). "Is Donald Trump Actually a Narcissist? Therapists Weigh In!". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on 2018-07-05. Retrieved 2018-07-20. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) Lee, Brandy X (May 14, 2018). "Mental Health Experts Speak of an Increasingly Dangerous Era". Psychology Today. Retrieved 14 June 2019. ^ Herbst, Diane (May 1, 2018). "Top Psychiatrists Gather to Warn That Donald Trump 'Represents a Danger to Public Health'". People. Retrieved 14 June 2019. Gartner, John (April 9, 2019). "Trump's cognitive deficits seem worse. We need to know if he has dementia: Psychologist". USA Today. Retrieved 14 June 2019. Who Is Bandy Lee? Trump's Mental Health Questioned By Yale Psychiatrist. Archived 2018-01-24 at the Wayback Machine Gayathri Anuradha, International Business Times, 3 January 2018. Retrieved 23 January 2018. Willingham, Emily. "The Trump Psych Debate: Is It Wrong To Say He's Mentally Ill?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2018-07-17. Retrieved 2018-07-20. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) Lozada, Carlos (September 22, 2017). "Is Trump Mentally Ill? Or Is America? Psychiatrists Weigh In". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-07-26. Retrieved 2018-07-20. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) Baker, Peter; Haberman, Maggie (January 6, 2018). "Trump, Defending His Mental Fitness, Says He's a 'Very Stable Genius'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) Smith, Allan (October 27, 2017). "TRUMP: I remember call to Gold Star widow better than she does because I have 'one of the great memories of all-time'". Business Insider. Retrieved 2019-04-24.

Comments? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Thanks for pitching in.- MrX 🖋 20:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thanks for the more recent sources, but please remove the long mention of and quote from the "25,000 mental health professionals" letter; that's exactly the kind of armchair medical opinion tainted by political bias that unduly adorned the "Health" article. The Bandy Lee book is plenty enough for this line of reasoning. — JFG 20:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I do want to mention the letter so that the book isn't the only source we have for this sort of claim. If that full quote seems to be political we could shorten it to stating that in their professional judgement, "Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness." -- MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Fine with the trimmed quote, and I'd remove "in their professional judgment" too, because we just called them "mental health professionals". — JFG 21:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think there is a problem, here. The difference was that the Health of Donald Trump article captured every little bit of every little insignificant remark folks have made. This is one of the more significant pieces and it's inclusion isn't undue. One long paragraph is a significant improvement over an entire article of cruft.--v/r - TP 20:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That looks perfect to me as well. --Tataral (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Let's give it one more day for input before adding it. I take it everyone is OK with the rest of the modifications MrX suggested? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support MelanieN's rework of MrX's language. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - User:MelanieN para 1 and 2 are fine, 3 and 4 marginal (prefer trim or do without), and 5 definitely not. That one runs contrary to consensus #21, and regardless that somewhere else is being deleted, it’s still excluded here by prior consensus. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to the context of the proposed wording as being noncompliant with NPOV. Yes, there has been much speculation but that should not be the focus of his health - that's opinion. We are supposed to be fact-based when it comes to health issues and there is far too much weight being placed on speculation. We state what the examination by medical professionals have determined, and then we add a sentence or two about the wide-spread speculation by news sources and political opponents, which is factual and accurate and in the context it should be presented. _Talk 📧 18:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Assessments by (in this case, numerous and reputable) experts, based on publicly available, verifiable information and mainstream scholarship (e.g. in psychology), and published in reliable sources of good quality, including academic books and papers, are not "speculation" by "political opponents." There is no Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that the private opinions of his private doctors are any more relevant than the opinions of experts cited by reliable sources; in fact the opinions of the doctors he himself has chosen to consult are mostly relevant as a reflection of his own views on his health (stable genius, most healthy person ever etc.) We can mention that, but it is less "third-party" and less reliable than the assessments of independent experts.
  • A person can choose to consult any doctor, including doctors who are his friends, who agree with him politically or otherwise, who hold fringe views, who are mediocre/obscure/not very reputable and so on. When a person solicits an opinion from a doctor to be used in a political argument (that he is a "stable genius") that doctor isn't particularly independent. Often doctors say pretty much what the patient wants them to say, within reasonable limits, as was in fact the case when Trump dictated a letter signed by his doctor during the campaign that claimed that Trump "will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" (, , ) I wonder if Trump's doctor had examined all the previous presidents, since he makes a direct claim about their (allegedly bad) health (claiming that Obama in his 40s was less healthy than a septuagenarian who never exercises and who is transported in a golf cart), or does this bogus requirement only apply when someone says something about Trump?
  • The assessments by independent experts, e.g. in books such as The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, are of higher quality than letters dictated by Trump to his personal doctors because, unlike his personal doctors, who can be just anybody with no scholarly reputations, the independent experts must compete in the marketplace of ideas based on their scholarly reputations and the quality of their arguments. When they get all this coverage in high quality RS such as NYT, NPR, BBC, The Guardian etc., it's because RS consider their assessments to be relevant and serious.
  • This text proposal is a very reasonable compromise that accomodates all the different views on this topic. --Tataral (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Tataral is correct. There is no plausible "noncompliant with NPOV" argument to be considered.- MrX 🖋 10:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Yup. Part of the problem here is the absence of data. Since Trump has only allowed sycophants to examine him, we must partly rely on armchair diagnoses to get a more complete picture. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
        • The only reasonable conclusion from an argument in favor of a medical diagnosis from a doctor that has never examined the subject over one that has is personal biases. There is another explanation to Tataral's scenario that wasn't consider: the media published these experts because the experts expressed an opinion that supported their narrative. The experts published their opinion because it helps their career to get noticed and they are unlikely to receive criticism to a very popular opinion. But at the end of the day, none of them have examined the subject. I would suggest that no one here attach themselves to Tataral because here, and at the AfD, they often ignored consensus and misrepresented consensus. They are coming here with strong biases. We should be able to have this conversation without that.--v/r - TP 22:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• • • • • • This talk page in general as well as the comment by myself that you replied to are concerned with the improvement of the article on Donald Trump. If you intend to spend your time here making comments like that one you made above you cannot expect that I, or anyone else, will dignify your comments with any further replies. --Tataral (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• I disagree based on the following plausible reasons:
  1. Amendment to close: A small amendment per a request on my talk page: Given that many of the concerns here are about the reliability of medical information and whether "armchair diagnoses" by people who have not personally examined Trump are actually reliable, as well as more general gossip/unencyclopedicity concerns, the editors who carry out the merger should probably consider a very selective merge that only includes the good material supported by top-notch sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 3:35 am, 14 June 2019, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−5) (reply)
  2. BLPN discussion. _Talk 📧 15:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I will be adding his height to this paragraph. It was removed. starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say I Support MelanieN’s modified proposal. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. starship.paint (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Further edits - from the paragraph on Bornstein, the second line mentioning appendectomy and mentioning not mentioned bone spurs seems useless and disrupts the connection between line1 letter written and line3 letter said dictated. Better if it were removed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Para 5 excluded by Current Consensus

Mental health Rumors, speculations and slurs (apparently from deleted/discredited Health article) in proposal above already got fast-track inserted, ignoring User:Atsme and User:MONGO and not waiting.

I’ve deleted that as contrary to the standing consensus#21. I believe this topic - and specifically the ‘Dangerous case’ book and psych petition - were RFCed and categorically any such were excluded from RFC. You can have a separate article on the book, but not in this BLP.

If it reappears, I believe the consensus section guides removal and grants exception to 1RR so anyone can remove it repeatedly if need be - so please do not reinsert.

p.s Seems to me the Health article created in 2018 AFTER the 2017 consensus was a way to circumvent the BLP policy, WEIGHT and OFFTOPIC concerns, and this consensus #21. Just my opinion, but that seems also what happened for Consensus #22 - in 2018 the Veracity article is created. That a small snippet was taken elsewhere and got greatly expanded seems a POVFORK, verging on ATTACK page. May need another RFC on the fork/unfork proprieties there....

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

... the current consensus was established in August 2017. Has anything changed since then? starship.paint (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• July 2017 (background) American Psychoanalytic Association does not prohibit members from commenting on the mental health of public figures, but the American Psychiatric Association does
• September 2017 - "We will have no choice but to destroy North Korea"
• January 2018 - "I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"
• January 2018 - "throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart ... a very stable genius" (he establishes the allegations noteworthiness by denying them)
• March 2018 - "He doesn’t know me, but he would go down fast and hard, crying all the way. Don’t threaten people Joe!"
• July 2018 - "NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE."
• September 2018 - UN press conference
• February 2019 speech - the old man at the bar sounding off about the world’s ills ... wild detours ... random segues ... Trump sniffed frequently, and at times his speech sounded slurred
• March 2019 - 67 lines from 2-hour CPAC speech
• May 2019 - "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran."

Feel free to provide more information. starship.paint (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The only consensus regarding any material on this topic is the consensus in this section in favour of the text proposal by MelanieN, following the earlier decision to merge the most central parts of Health of Donald Trump into this article. As there is consensus for the text proposal it should be restored. The health article is neither "deleted" nor "discredited". --Tataral (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the material should be restored per WP:CONSENSUS. All we have are a couple of editors ignoring a multitude of sources and substituting their own colorful opinions (armchair, slurs, gossip, speculation). As I read the above discussions, substantially more editors favor inclusion of the material than not, so good luck with that 1RR exception.- MrX 🖋 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

We could have another Rfc.--MONGO (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tataral That is false. As I clearly stated, the paragraph is directly contrary to Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus #21. The allegations, even the publications, were discussed and dismissed and felt recordable as categorically blocked in 2017. That a spawn article was done in 2018 which evades that seems the main event to me.

NOTTABLOID And while trying awfully hard to AGF, to the point this seems a willful avoidance of limits of POVFORK, either awareness that this is a BLP with higher standards and the potential to back flow material from less creditable articles into here. WP isn’t supposed to be a Tabloid, especially so in BLP articles. We may need a new RFC to explicitly make a caution about this.

NOTSLIMY Finally It’s OK to think leadership is a hyperbolic rambling speaker, normal for New Yorkers and real estate; or to think benign narcissist, maybe sort of normal among billionaires; or to think he and his ideas are a bit of a nutter to the extent common among Grumpy Old Guys. But it’s NOT ok to phrase that as a matter of medical concern. And to gather a litany of one-sided rumors and insinuations just won’t do. It needs discussion on principles not exhaustively listing each Google hit on one side. (Yes Starship, looking at you.). It’s by far more disreputable or nuttier to be asserting ‘mentally ill’, along with ‘collusion’, ‘like Hitler’, etcetera as a wording than any of the Trump behaviours being alluded to here. Please tune to BBC and the London Times a bit more and less wild speculation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

1) Even if there had been any such previous consensus from years ago, that wouldn't mean that a new consensus couldn't evolve. We now have such a new consensus that includes a specific formal decision that (the key parts of) Health of Donald Trump is to be merged into this article (the only way to appeal that is via Misplaced Pages:Deletion review), and in the implementation of that decision we have consensus for the text proposal by MelanieN that was implemented by MrX based on this discussion.

2) Health of Donald Trump, a quality article created by one of Misplaced Pages's most experienced editors that has been an established part of the Donald Trump article suite for a year, is not deleted and certainly not "discredited". Rather, the merge decision means that it remains an "article in good standing" and that editors believe the material should be covered here in some form. It is now part of this article, in other words. The article is still live and will remain so until the merge process has been completed, i.e. when we have agreed on a text that has been included in the Donald Trump article.

3) I opposed adding the false claim (itself worthy of being tagged as Template:Globalize/US) about a non-existent consensus to that list years ago, not only because there never was any previous consensus either for or against, but also because I anticipated that it would be abused as some sort of "weapon" against the forming of any future consensus (quite contrary to policy) regarding this issue. Your attempt to argue that the recent decision and discussion of this issue is irrelevant because of that list just proved that I was right. At the time everyone, including me, agreed that there was no consensus for including such material at that time and that the inclusion of such material would require future discussion and consensus (which has now happened), but no consensus for is not the same as a consensus against and cannot be used as an argument years later to shut down new decisions and discussions. Ostensibly, that was never the point of the list either. --Tataral (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tataral Well, that ceased falsely stating there is no consensus #21, but there is no “if there had been any such”. Please simply deal with it is obvious fact right there, plainly posted as guidance on this article and in TALK archives. So the discussion re importing may have been on a false and incomplete basis. Para 1 and 2 are fine, para 3 and 4 seem unnecessary verbosity meh, but para 5 was explicitly no-no and also seems contrary to current thread “Personality of Donald Trump”. Feel free to follow procedures and make an explicit case or RFC to change that if you wish and see what the outcome is in a week or two. Meanwhile please observe the stated items. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My thought: by consensus at the AFD page for Health of Donald Trump, we are supposed to merge that article into this. That article contains three short paragraphs about physical health. We pretty much reproduce those paragraphs in their entirety. It also contains ten paragraphs about his mental health. One of the complaints about the Health of DT article was that it overemphasized mental illness allegations, even including wisecracks from political opponents. We have respected that complaint by reproducing almost none of that material - just a one-paragraph summary of what was said by professionals in the field. IMO this proposal is responsive to both the requirement to include something on the subject (per the AfD), and the insistence that anything we say needs to be very carefully sourced and as neutral as we can make it. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So? The User:Jo-Jo Eumerus conclusion is to discuss here a “very selective merger” (noting concerns of BLP, copyvio, MEDRS, etc), with a final caution about “armchair diagnosis”. Jumping to insert the very material cautioned against with only brief local mention was not fully following that guidance. It was taking merge as if a license to insert the very thing cautioned against there and previously banned here which seems partly why that POVfork was later grown. At any rate, AfD discussion there is not a consensus here, it’s a directive to seek consensus here. I noted that local consensus #21 specifically excludes opinionating on mental health by people who have not examined him, and gives exemption from 1RR to delete it repeatedly, and simply executed the standing guidance. Excluding para 5 respects both article discussions to the maximum possible without contradictions.

I note that edits 1 thru 4 also did not get much discussion, so remain open to revert, but that seems not already explicitly excluded and subject to 1RR Limits. Jumping to replace all prior material here seemed a bit rushed or presumptive and not the intent of JoJo. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Stop trying to relitigate the AfD. I agree with Jo-Jo's closure and his additional statement. What we are proposing here actually is a "very selective merger" (reducing 10 paragraphs to one, can't get any more selective than that). If we are not able to use the opinions of medical professionals who have not examined him, then there is nothing to merge, because none have. And if that's the case, instead of "merge", the result of that AfD should have been "delete" or "redirect", because that would leave nothing to merge. All the physical health stuff is already in this article - mostly word-for-word - so what are we merging? I take the "merge" result of the AfD at face value; merge that the main points of the merged article should be reflected in the target article. That has to mean including at least some mention of mental health, which formed the bulk of the Health article and the only original material in it. Look, I used to be part of the consensus here not to say anything on the subject. I no longer am. To me that consensus has been overridden by 1) the long unchallenged existence of an article that went into the subject in depth, and 2) the AfD consensus to merge that article into this one. If they had meant for nothing about mental health to be merged, they would have said "redirect". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this. The "merge" outcome effectively requires this paragraph, or a version very similar, be included. Arguments against its inclusion should've been made during the AfD. This has already been decided. The material should be added to the article immediately, or we might as well just pretend the AfD process is meaningless. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN Respectfully, it is you who are not respecting the AfD nor respecting existing consensus in this article. The AfD decided a separate article was not merited. The armchair diagnosis and reportage of slurs was deprecated in that AfD. That little or perhaps nothing of that should arrive here seems the expectation, and the only specific is to go to discussion. No, “can’t get any more selective” obviously is disproven .... obviously one could get more selective than the entire replacement by 5 new paras, by simply cutting the one which is what happened and the topic in this sub thread. The armchair diagnosis is addressed by existing consensus #21 and there was no examination of that in AfD, nor detailed look that BLP has a higher standard, nor is any policy guidance I know of that says AfD somewhere else overrides local consensus. Respecting both consensus, cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Exercise

There should be a sentence about exercise, which is a key part of lifestyle, even more key since he is obese and was overweight. Possibly something like: Trump plays golf, but reportedly views exercise as a waste of finite energy. but there's actually more in the sources. I present a wide variety of different content below, but I'm sure I can find multiple sources for the same content (which you guys wouldn't want, as you want to trim the article) starship.paint (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• WaPo The Washington Post’s 2016 biography of the president, which noted that Trump mostly gave up athletics after college because he “believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted.”
• CNN 2019 "Nearly a dozen White House officials and sources close to Trump said they don't believe he's set foot in the fitness room in the White House residence, maintaining his view that exercise would be a waste of the energy he has always touted as one of his best attributes."
• NYT 2015 Trump said he was not following any special diet or exercise regimen for the campaign. "All my friends who work out all the time, they’re going for knee replacements, hip replacements — they’re a disaster" he said. He exerts himself fully by standing in front of an audience for an hour, as he just did. "That’s exercise."
• ABC 2018 White House Doctor Ronny Jackson: "Some people exercise, some people don’t. Some people just haven’t done that as part of their routine. And I would say that’s the category he falls in right now" and same source: But there’s one form of physical activity with which Trump is closely associated: golf.
• Reuters 2018 - Trump: "I get exercise. I mean I walk, I this, I that ... I run over to a building next door. I get more exercise than people think ... A lot of people go to the gym and they’ll work out for two hours and all. I’ve seen people ... then they get their new knees when they’re 55 years old and they get their new hips and they do all those things. I don’t have those problems" He gets exercise by playing golf, he said, even though he typically rides around the course in a golf cart. Walking would leave him on the course longer than he prefers, he said. "I don’t want to spend the time." starship.paint (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that that wasn't mentioned in the article we are merging. Yet another way in which it was a lousy article. I suggest it could go in the same paragraph where people point out that his diet, weight, and lifestyle are suboptimal. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN. Here's some options I'm proposing: starship.paint (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Option A: Trump plays golf, but reportedly views exercise as a waste of finite energy.
• Option B: Although Trump plays golf, White House Doctor Ronny Jackson said in 2018 that Trump does not have a exercise routine. Trump has said that people who regularly exercise would require orthopedic surgery at his age.
• Option C: White House Doctor Ronny Jackson said in 2018 that Trump does not have a exercise routine. Trump does play golf, and to save time, favors using a golf cart over walking around the course.
• Option D: Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.
• Option E: Trump plays golf but otherwise does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.
• Option F: Trump plays golf and favors using a golf cart over walking around the course. He otherwise does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.

I think we should keep it brief but informative. How about a combination of A and B: "Trump plays golf but otherwise does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy." -- MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• I kind of favor C D or E. Trump's view about orthopedic surgery or "finite energy" are trivial and meaningless. Golf is not really exercise if your ride around in a golf cart, so I wouldn't object leaving it off entirely.- MrX 🖋 17:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've added and support "Option D" on the basis that playing golf with a golf cart isn't exercise, and thus can be completely excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, at this rate, there will be an RfC to rank options (if something isn't supported here, we can leave it out as an option). Added MelanieN's sentence as option E, added a slightly expanded version Option F which I prefer. starship.paint (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Disease or disorder?

I concur with this edit at the Health article from which this material came. The source we're citing doesn't appear to support the words "psychiatric diseases". Is it too late to propose this tweak to what MrX added to the article today? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"Disorder" is the correct terminology. Surely this is a no-brainer? (Vague pun intended.) -- Scjessey (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection.- MrX 🖋 18:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Mmm. That edit comment fails WP:V - just follow the cite. An editors personal opinions about whether the term is outdated does not count as a basis. The wording in question seems to come from the Washington Post line:

“The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” features more than two dozen essays breaking down the president’s perceived traits, which the contributors find consistent with symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathy and other maladies.

The later part of the Post article says they're doing something APA says is unethical, that authors say he's like Hitler and with needless vulgarity that absolute tyranny is Trump's wet dream is not looking like the source for this line.

Both the WP line "They defined Trump's behavior in terms of psychiatric diseases, such as narcissistic personality disorder." and using "mental disorder" seem off. It was not saying 'defining' of behaviour nor 'in terms of' nor a single category of either type. Wording is more directly "They find his perceived traits consistent with symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathy and other maladies." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Which version?

MrX, I see that you added your original version of the last paragraph to the article. In your edit summary you said Adding merged content from Health of Donald Trump per consensus at talk: Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle proposal (Support: MrX, Tataral, Scjessey, bd2412, MelanieN, TParis, JFG; Oppose: MONGO, Atsme) Substantially more participation in this discussion than in both previous discussions documented in consensus #21. This it the new consensus, unless MelanieN's modifications to paragraph 5 get a little more support. Actually I thought we already had consensus for my modified version. After I posted it there were approving comments from you yourself as well as JFG, TParis, Tataral, Scjessey - that’s five, plus me - as well as opposition from Markbassett and Atsme. The later version has more and more current sources, and it does not contain the sentence about “psychiatric diseases” that was objected to, and it does contain Trump’s rebuttal. Virtually everyone, with the except of bd2412, that had commented on the original version later said they liked the modified version. So I’m not sure how you reached the conclusion that the original version, rather than the modified version, had consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN on this. — JFG 22:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: OK, that make's sense. I got lost in the subsequent discussion following your proposal, so I wasn't certain about the consensus. Someone should go ahead and add your version and update the list of consensuses.- MrX 🖋 23:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

What is our current consensus?

The consensus list entry is very general and I don't think it needs updating. But it would be useful for the future to clarify exactly what the new consensus language is, somewhere in this discussion. I could do a 99%-uninvolved close if desired, provided I don't have to analyze and summarize arguments on this one. Just pointing to the consensus language. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My reading of the whole discussion was that there was consensus for MelanieN's version, and that those who had an opinion at all about her proposed changes had weighed in the section about the changes. --Tataral (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really, it’s been Helter Skelter. Starship got a jump on the AfD merge with retitling and edits 10 June, MrX did a talk 14 June to edit 15 June, and then a MelanieN revision talk late 14 June to edit circa 16 June and numerous tweaks since by several editors - last being a fair sized one by MelanieN just a bit ago, whups no Mandruss just got in there... There really wasn’t a lot of prior open discussion to form a consensus about what to include or not just jumps into edits hence there’s been jumps into after-edits and still discussing content and wording. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we need to remove the list item. If nothing else, it has been superseded by the current consensus in this section, that is concerned with the implementation of the AfD result. The fact that Markbassett is trying to use it to "relitigate the AfD" (as MelanieN noted) is a good illustration of why it needs to go, because it directly contradicts content that there is consensus to include. What we do have consensus for is to keep material on this issue fairly short and based on only the best sources, which is also in line with the AfD decision. I wouldn't oppose a new list item to that effect. --Tataral (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday, #21 was marked superseded and #36 was added. Sorry, I assumed all interested parties would notice the changes, an unwise assumption considering list changes don't appear in this page's history (the list is transcluded). ―Mandruss ☎ 11:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Our new “current consensus #36” says Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. I have a slight disagreement with that wording. I agree with keeping it to one paragraph. But I would absolutely oppose reporting any views expressed by “public figures” (the Health article actually quoted Jeb Bush, as if he was some kind of authority on Bush’s mental health rather than a political rival; would we quote Donald Trump to prove that Hillary Clinton is a criminal?). And I would mostly oppose comments from individual commenters - with a possible exception for a column by a mental health professional, but it’s better the way we have it where we quote the combined analyses of multiple professionals. I think it should say Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by mental health professionals, even if they have not personally examined him. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that would be accurate because the paragraph begins "Numerous public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals have speculated that Trump may have mental health challenges." The version I wrote acknowledges that public figures and media sources have also speculated about Trump's mental health.- MrX 🖋 17:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we do report that they speculate about it. I just don't want our consensus to suggest that we are going to quote any of their speculation - I think we should make it clear that we will not be "describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by" public figures and media sources. Obviously I'm open to other opinions, if people think that is too fine a distinction to make. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't quote specific public figures in that section, because there are better qualified, more relevant and more independent sources, but we can mention briefly that the issue has been the subject of much commentary (like we currently do) without going into further detail about the opinions of individual public figures. I also agree that we should focus on analyses of multiple professionals when possible; the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, that is a joint project of 27 reputable experts, is a good example of that. --Tataral (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I assumed that, since the added language is too much to include in the list entry (or is it?), we would agree on the precise language in this discussion and further discussion and agreement would be required to change that paragraph in any way. Is that unworkable? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I always assumed that any future change to the wording of this highly sensitive and much debated paragraph agreed to here would require future discussion and consensus anyway. Perhaps we can just link to the specific wording (i.e. the version proposed by MelanieN)? --Tataral (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I alluded to this yesterday, here. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't favor locking in a specific wording. We need to be able to make at least minor corrections. And things can change, new issues can arise. And after all, most of the people who approved of the revised version also previously approved of the original version, so both can be said to have met consensus. I think we should state the consensus on the TYPE of thing we can say in this paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely wish you good luck and godspeed in that endeavor. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I made a proposal above. I'll repeat it: Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by mental health professionals, even if they have not personally examined him. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That works for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Whoa, that was easy! Are your wishes for good luck and godspeed always this successful? 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Merged

OK, I added the second version and completed the merge. We could still have a discussion about how the new consensus should read. I'd like it to me a little more limited as to what kind of information is allowed. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Since we are including contentious speculation about Trump's mental health by health professionals who have violated their own professional ethics, we should at least state the circumstances of their armchair diagnosis in the paragraph we're adding. The AfD closer clarified: A small amendment per a request on my talk page: Given that many of the concerns here are about the reliability of medical information and whether "armchair diagnoses" by people who have not personally examined Trump are actually reliable, as well as more general gossip/unencyclopedicity concerns, the editors who carry out the merger should probably consider a very selective merge that only includes the good material supported by top-notch sources. I don't see where local consensus was reached to include what we have now. I believe we should stick closer to the consensus reached by the wider community. Another consideration is what was said when I first took the issue to BLPN, the statement by GreenMeansGo when he opened the AfD, and the ongoing discussion at VP (policy). There is also the suggestion by BD2412 regarding a suggestion by TParis as follows: With as broad a body of reporting as there has been, we shouldn't proceed as if the claims don't exist, but I am amenable to the compromise proposal TParis has made above to convert this into an article specifically on the phenomenon of a substantial number of mental health professionals making claims about a specific patient that they have not examined, and the response of the APA and other governing bodies to that practice. The way the paragraph reads now makes the armchair opinions appear to be legitimate diagnoses, and that needs to be changed. For example, Trump's critics", media pundits, and several mental health professionals, who never examined Trump, gave their opinions in violation of the Goldwater Rule, suggesting disorders such as narcissism, delusional disorder, or early dementia. . That's all the weight it needs, anything more is UNDUE. _Talk 📧 19:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That wording makes it sounds like the critics and media pundits were in violation of the Goldwater Rule, which only applies to mental health professionals. If we are going to bring up the rule, it should be specified that the mental health professionals who made the statements have never personally examined Trump, and are in violation of the Goldwater Rule. Some of those who are merely critics (i.e. not mental health professionals) who have commented on Trump's mental health are people who have met him in person. bd2412 T 19:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with bd2412 that the wording there needs more clarification. Not necessarily even more words, but definitely at least a clearer structure. Other than that, I'm just not totally sure why we're really considering the opinions of nondescript "critics and media pundits". I struggle to imagine where we would take such opinions seriously on any other medical topic. GMG 20:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I would have no problem removing reference to anyone who is not a medical mental health professional. The opinions of others is relevant to the public perception of Trump, but not relevant to his actual health. bd2412 T 20:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Psychologists are not medical professionals, but are qualified experts on this topic nevertheless. The book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump is authored by "psychiatrists , psychologists, and other mental health professionals." --Tataral (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Corrected. bd2412 T 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we are pretty much in agreement that we do not want to actually cite opinions from anyone who is not a mental health professional, although we do mention in the opening sentence that those other groups have also made comments. As for the "violation of the Goldwater rule," we could possibly handle that by adding a footnote, along these lines: Some of these mental health professionals belong to organizations that have a Goldwater rule. which says their members should not render an opinion about the status of a person they have not examined. Spokespeople for authors of the public statements responded that they are also bound by the principle of Duty to warn when someone appears to be dangerous. Do people think something like this would be necessary or helpful? (I'm not recommending it myself one way or the other, just raising a possibility.) -- MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree in principle. I think footnotes are a good solution when we want to be entirely accurate but want to avoid getting too deep in the weeds for general consumption. I think they should be used more. Here's my copy edit: Some of these mental health professionals belong to organizations that endorse the Goldwater rule, which says their members should not render an opinion about the mental health of a person they have not examined. Authors of the public statements responded that they are also bound by the principle of duty to warn when someone appears to be dangerous. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an improvement. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

And it would need a citation or two, for V. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a note for Atsme and BD2412: the Goldwater Rule isn't mandatory for all mental health professionals. For example, the American Psychoanalytic Association says its members don't have to follow the Goldwater Rule. starship.paint (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Depending of course on how broadly you want to use the term "mental health professional". GMG 14:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Make a separate "Personal Life of Donald Trump" Article

I believe that the current "Family and personal life" section of the article is far too long, especially when compared to fellow presidents such as Barack Obama. A solution to this would be to cut off some of the fluff that isn't very necessary and move it to a new article called "Personal life of Donald Trump". This could also include Health of Donald Trump, since that is part of his personal life. BobRoberts14 (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

• Oppose - I prefer to move/remove/trim his actions as president and properly spin them/add them to relative articles. Trim everything down considerably with far less detail. We've got so many articles about Trump they're pushing the ad nauseum needle to tilt, and there's more yet to come. _Talk 📧 00:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be trimmed, but it could all be added to a single article about his personal life. BobRoberts14 (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

This article is supposed to be about his personal life. All the other stuff needs to be trimmed down or moved out. Look at the former presidents' BLPs. _Talk 📧 00:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay that sounds good, I do think the "personal life" section needs to be trimmed a lot. BobRoberts14 (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Unless Personal life of Donald Trump (or other sub-articles) is created, there shouldn't be trimming. This is where that content currently belongs. starship.paint (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there needs to be trimming either way, since this article is way too long and cannot even be skimmed over in a reasonable period of time, i.e. there is too much fluff (unnecessary/trivial info) Bob Roberts 02:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You're targeting the wrong section. The family and personal life section is only around 13% of the article. starship.paint (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This section includes info that could be put into a separate article, i.e. Personal life of Donald Trump. I made an early version of it, including about all the information from the Health of Donald Trump article and the "Family and personal life" section of the Donald Trump article. Can anyone help me out with it? Bob Roberts 03:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems good except I think the lead needs significant improvement, but otherwise it's ready for publishing. The bigger question is what we remove from the Donald Trump article. I think we should also merge Trump family into Family of Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Onetwothreeip, can you help improve it? I think I will work on it later, but with more improvement, it could be its own article. Bob Roberts 03:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support Create a separate article named Personal Life of Donald Trump that would also include Health of Donald Trump and the "Family and personal life" section of the Donald Trump article. Bob Roberts 04:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Create the article..expand it as much as possible warts and all. 2600:1702:2340:9470:FD62:44DA:A0F8:8960 (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support you gonna delete this too mandruss ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2340:9470:5035:7312:706E:A981 (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Struck double vote, which is even worse than a double !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That's enough, please. Your previous comment was removed for a good reason, which I warned and talked to you about here. This article subject is under discretionary sanctions, and comments that jab, poke, or attempt to snap at others, or are uncivil and contain personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion on-topic, your comments civil and respectful, and the overall conduct and atmosphere positive and that supports a collaborative editing environment and peaceful discussion. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~ 05:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Draft:Personal life of Donald Trump was submitted recently, but I've declined it until consensus can be made here. Needs a lot more opinions from folks besides the primary editor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is the personal life of Donald Trump article. Spin off hotels, casinos, golf, and wrestling if you must.- MrX 🖋 12:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - It would be unnecessary overkill to do both this and #Proposal for resolution. I favor the latter. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The hotels casinos etc have nothing to do with his personal life it`s business.2600:1702:2340:9470:FD62:44DA:A0F8:8960 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if this is really a good idea? I searched the pedia for "Personal life of..." and found only celebrities and a few historical figures; no politicians at all. I do agree that it should not include his business or political activities. More to the point I wonder: if we create this, would really serve its purpose as a fork of this article? Because if I know us, we will probably keep most of the material here as well as adding it to the spinoff article, and we will just be left with two largely duplicative articles and a need for us to keep updating both of them. That's been the case with most of the Trump fork articles; they have been created by the dozens, and they languish in isolation while everything related to them gets put here instead. I might support this if it left only a bare-bones summary of the family and health issues here, moving most of the material to the new article. But even if we did that, I suspect people would keep adding all the details back here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That`s a good point but I still think all the relevant content that can be sourced should be represented on Misplaced Pages if for no other reason than a lot of people see him as extremely unstable..btw the double vote thing was an honest mistake..I was smoking a lot of weed last night and I forget that I posted. 2600:1702:2340:9470:FD62:44DA:A0F8:8960 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:EUI will do that. No worries. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – Undue spinoff. Trump's personal life is part of his biography, which is this article. There's nothing particularly extraordinary that would deserve a content fork. Rather trim existing content, especially overly detailed policy stuff that should be in more specialised articles, such as Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. — JFG 20:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support if and only if it isn't just a new article to get around the AFD of Health of Donald Trump. But this article is long and needs to fork somewhere.--v/r - TP 20:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Not a good idea. How would that even work? Trump doesn't draw the line between personal, business, and presidency. The only feasible way of permanently paring down this article is to move everything (the good, the bad, the ugly, everything, including everything in the lead) concerning the presidency into that article, keeping it there until he leaves office, and then add a short summation to this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attacks on other editors. Visiting your own golf resorts, inviting the Irish prime minister to meet you at one of them while visiting his country is PR (attracting media attention ) for his private business; schlepping adult children—who according to Trump & Jr. & Eric are in no way involved in his presidency but are running the business belonging to him—along on a state visit and to a state dinner is mixing private life, business, and presidency, according to , . It isn’t possible to cleanly separate the personal from the business and the presidency, and your numerous mentions of "trimming" and "unnecessary fluff" don’t take into account prior dozens of discussions whether s.th. is fluff/unnecessary/trivial, so not boding well for this article or the potential spinoff. And I see we’re off to a promising start . Since you are a new editor, maybe you do not know that there are 98 archives to this page where you can peruse previous discussions. (No need to ping me, I read this page fairly regularly.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as inappropriate removal of essential material: the lack of traditional boundaries between Trump's family, business and political endeavors is one of the defining characteristics of his presidency. -- The Anome (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I see a huge contradiction here..on the one hand people are saying the article is too long..I see that as debatable however everything in the article is supposed to be there for a reason as everything is debated to death here..the same people who are saying trim the article are saying there is no need for a new article..every statement here is obviously agenda driven..I have an agenda but I admit it which is why I don`t edit articles..that would be unethical since I have a bias and a very strong one both political and personal..again my opinion is create a new article..cover his personal life extensively since there are many of us who consider him our Caligula and is extremely relevant to us despite any bias of others..if and when this article is created it is probably appropriate to move the bulk of the information there however keep a summery..most importantly keep a link here to it..I`ve seen articles moved around and linked in a way to promote an agenda and suppress others...that`s all...I don`t have time to debate any of this. 2600:1702:2340:9470:8870:1FAE:CBFA:2C0C (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose in this as the person-named article *is* the BLP, which should be about his life. Trim lots, sure - but not that. Push material from here to the highlighted sub articles such as more Presidency stuff to the Presidency article. Delete trivial bits entirely. I think 50% trim could make it read more cleanly - but face it, he’s lived longer than Obama, with more wives, careers, etcetera ... so it’s just going to be more. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Add back the "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably" tag

This article is definitely too long, and many people agree. Regardless of that, Space4Time3Continuum2x removed it from the page without first looking for consensus. I believe it should be added back until the matter is decided upon. Bob Roberts 06:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I've restored it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it :) Bob Roberts 07:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It serves no practical purpose since this one of the most active talk pages on Misplaced Pages. Many of us have been routinely trimming the article to keep it manageable. - MrX 🖋 15:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong. It serves a purpose to bring new editors to the talk page who do not already regularly view it. Most people agreed to keep the tag, including Onetwothreeip and me. Don't just revert people's edits because you think you're right. The majority of editors agrede to have the tag, and the article still hasn't even been shortened. Bob Roberts 20:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with MrX. If those tags have any utility at all, it's for when the issue needs more attention than it has been receiving (lately). ―Mandruss ☎ 16:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not only a matter of attention but also about priority. Potential editors of this article are rightly reminded of the article's length, and that should be a consideration of all editors. It's not just about bringing people to the talk page, although that's also something good coming about from tags like these. We also don't want to give the impression that the length issues are fixed, and we don't want readers of Misplaced Pages to think that the extreme length of this article is normal. Since this article is very long despite many people having this on their watchlist, we most certainly could use more people to contribute to discussion and to fixing the issues. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Thank you for participating in the discussion. Now perhaps we can agree that the reasonable and orderly thing to do is restore the article to status quo ante until there is a consensus to change it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The tag serves no useful purpose. Talk page discussion is a much better venue for effecting change. The article isn't really very long, when one considers that 50% is references. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's an argument to be made against the tag generally, not its application on this article. One of the reasons we use this tag is that it brings editors to discussions on the talk page, it's not the tag itself that makes changes. Of course this article is very long though, including too many references especially if they are half of the article. This article is currently the 8th largest on Misplaced Pages. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well some article has to be the longest, and some article has to be the 8th largest. Shortening this one only makes a different one the 8th largest, and Trump will be unhappy if his article isn't the largest of them all. Regrettably, he really is that notable. Previous presidents haven't had their fingers in as many pies as he has. That makes for many long articles about him.

The best way to shorten this one is to make sure that the sections which are summaries of sub-articles are concise and brief. Any very long sections which are not summaries could be spun off per WP:SPINOFF. That too would shorten it, but shortness is not a virtue. It's time for you to stop aiming at all the long articles and trying to shorten them. Just start improving article content and actually building them, which often has the effect of making them longer. LOL! -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with the size of articles, whether that be the ideal size or the actual size. The argument that some article has to be the largest is only a sensible when we have a situation where there are essentially no more articles that are not too long, which I don't think anybody would claim about on Misplaced Pages. There are at least thousands of articles that would be rightly considered too long, and many more that need improvement for many other reasons, but editors choose for themselves which articles to prioritise improving.

The subject's notability does however have a bearing on the amount of articles about the subject, and that should certainly be the case here. Generally we should have the same kinds of sub-articles for Donald Trump as we've had for Barack Obama, which is why I've started my attention on splitting off his early/personal life. My main concern is not in deleting content, but making sure that content is in the right places and not in the wrong places. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: You've done it again. I remind you that the article is under discretionary sanctions and advise you not to add that tag again without consensus to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the status quo is for the tag to remain. Nobody here is saying this is not a very large article. Those issues haven't been fully addressed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the only support you have in this discussion is from a low-time teenaged editor who has since changed his username and been topic-banned from AP2. In opposition are three experienced editors. That's what's clear to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the reasons I've raised for the tag remaining. I wasn't talking about support or opposition, I was talking about what constitutes status quo. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this the first add? If so, it was first disputed roughly 52 hours later, here. Fifty-two hours is hardly long enough to establish status quo ante, since even regular editors often go longer between activity at the article. Subsequent time in the article doesn't count toward SQA since those reverts were illegitimate, and it still wouldn't constitute SQA if it did. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• 2,629 editors have this page on their watch lists. I don't see the reason for a tag looking for more editors. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Make that four experienced editors in opposition. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we just dispel the notion that the tag is to be there to get more editors to the talk page? It's completely a strawman argument. I'm not saying it's a matter of how long the tag was there, it's a matter of how long the article has been the extreme size that it's been. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's the major purpose of tags. O3000 (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

As has been said multiple times, we have multiple initiatives already underway to significantly reduce article size. Give them a chance to work. This is not an issue that is being neglected. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not really the major purpose of tags in general, but it's often a purpose. The tag should remain to tell those who seek to edit the article, regardless of their level of experience or their involvement in the talk pages. I think we would prefer that editors are aware that the article is large when they make edits, either in considering how they add to content or in encouraging editors to resolve these issues. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. You have articulated your position well, and you still lack a consensus. That's how it works, as frustrating as it may be. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I'm frustrated over this, but I'm more confused. Can someone explain the argument that the tag shouldn't be there because people already know it? I can see why that would mean someone wouldn't add it, but not why someone would remove it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you're assuming there is a "correct" answer here. As with most Misplaced Pages issues, there are only viewpoints. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're telling me this, it has nothing to do with what I said. You're not obligated to respond to me at all but clearly that doesn't answer my query. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well the last time editors ceased responding to you, you took that as a green light to add the tag again. I was trying to avoid a recurrence of that. But no, I frankly don't feel the need to explain myself further. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

What I took as a "green light" was that you said you supported returning to the status quo while discussion was ongoing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

My mistake then, I assumed an editor with your experience knew that 52 hours does not mean status quo ante in any circumstances. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said, it was nothing to do with the tag being there for any amount of time like most content disputes would be. It was the amount of time that the article's size was an issue, the tag is just a formality of that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Add the tag again and see how far that argument gets you at AE. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

All the regular editors of this article are aware that it is too long, and most are usefully engaged in trying to alleviate the problem. The tag is unnecessary; moreover, it is adding another transcluded template and exacerbating the problem (albeit insignificantly). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."

Is this part really necessary? It seems too biased to be in the article. Andrew Jackson was arguably the most racist president ever, since he forcibly removed thousands of Native American's from their homes and owned many slaves, but it does not say that he is considered racist in the lede of his article. Which comments of Trump's specifically were racist? And even if he has made some racist comments, that doesn't mean you can say "many of his comments... racist." Some of his comments have been, but that it not a main characteristic of his presidency, and isn't a major part of his policies. So since that is not a common theme of his comments, I don't think it should be in the lede. I think this is especially true because the "many" part should be sourced with a list of his "racist" comments and how often he makes them. Currently there is no source cited. Bob Roberts 08:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read the history of discussion linked from #Current consensus item 30. Then tell us if you think further discussion would be a good use of our time. It is not constructive to keep re-raising issues indefinitely without significant new arguments. BTW, this article doesn't say Trump is considered racist. It says many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. I see at least three differences between the two, all significant. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Almost anyone would see "is racist" and "his comments were racist" as the same thing. When I read that sentence, I interpret it as saying that Trump is racist. Either way, I did read the other arguments about this (after Starship mentioned them), and they were "weak consensus" and not that recent either way. So I think this is still relevant. Bob Roberts 08:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"Many of his comments ... have been characterized as ... racist" is not equal to "Trump is racist". starship.paint (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That's correct. Our target audience is not 6th graders. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BobRoberts14: - #Current consensus #30. There were "wars" fought over this sentence. Also, not everything needs to be sourced in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. starship.paint (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I know that everything does not need to be sourced, but that sentence is contentious and does not seem necessary. Unless you can prove that he is very racist in many of his comments and policy, I don't think it belongs. He has made some racist comments, but not "many". Bob Roberts 08:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, remove the word "many" from the sentence, since almost anyone (including me) would agree that he has made some racist comments. But saying that he has made many needs to be cited with a source listing out numerous racist comments. Bob Roberts 08:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@BobRoberts14: - we have a section Donald Trump#Racial views and an entire article Racial views of Donald Trump. The section and the article has sources. So we're not citing it in the lead. starship.paint (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That article does not include the claim that "many of his comments were racist". That claim is not sourced, and it is arguable. He does not make "many" racist comments, or they would more frequently be in the news. He makes some, but that is very different from "many". Bob Roberts 08:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, the concept of "many" differs among people, but the previous consensus was okay with "many". starship.paint (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are just trying to read the article normally, then they mean the same thing. I know they are not exactly the same, but the first one implies that he is racist by stating that "many" of his comments are. You still aren't giving me a list of "many" racist comments though. We aren't talking about the previous consensus, I'm asking for proof of "many" racist comments. "Many comments" means at least a few dozen to me, but normally more if we are talking about public comments. Bob Roberts 09:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please read the archived discussions about this. Similar objections have been thoroughly discussed and consensus has been arrived at. - MrX 🖋 12:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Leave it the way it is..he`s obviously a racist..take for instance his attitude towards Native Americans..not even getting into the oval office incident I`m guessing he doesn`t have any understanding of the fact Hispanics are indigenous..misunderstandings about race are one of the more obvious aspects of racism...btw they just found another body on the border..this time it`s a 7 year old child..this dynamic has been going on since 1492..same old thing..never changes.2600:1702:2340:9470:8870:1FAE:CBFA:2C0C (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I am ignoring your comments, since yesterday you said "add the part about Trump's many marriage failures, and the sexual misconduct with the 13 year old girl." You can't just make the excuse that you "smoked a lot of weed", since your comments should never have been posted on Misplaced Pages in the first place. Bob Roberts 21:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• There is a difference between saying "this person is racist" and "this person has been characterized as racist". The second one is a statement of fact, he has been characterized as being a racist. It is a notable topic in relation to him and has been well covered. One line in the article, even the lead, seems more than reasonable.--v/r - TP 20:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I never said one word about his marriages. 2600:1702:2340:9470:51E5:CF7:8E89:BDDB (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Quote is not in the body (update: added)

Actually, BobRoberts14 has a point. The quote "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." is not in the body of this article. It's also not in Racial views of Donald Trump. What should we do, then? starship.paint (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I just think the word "many" should at least be removed and replaced with "some". I do not support Donald Trump's racist comments, since I am for African American rights, but I have not seen proof that he makes "many". I have only seen a few examples. The article mainly mentions his actions, not comments, and does not list "many" Bob Roberts 09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

To be honest though, I think this sentence should just be removed, since he hasn't even made many policies on race anyways, and he has not made "many" racist comments. It definitely does not belong in the lede. Only a few of his policies have involved race, and some were bad for African Americans (supporting the plaintiffs in the case against Harvard's acceptance policies), while some others were beneficial for African Americans, such as the First Step Act, which mainly helped incarcerated African-Americans. Either way, neither of those are "comments", and he obviously avoids making many comments on race because it is a contentious issue. Only 45% of Americans believe that Trump is racist, according to the article Racial views of Donald Trump, so that doesn't constitute "many". Bob Roberts 09:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you are overinterpreting the word "many", and I think you are splitting hairs beyond any benefit to readers. This same encyclopedia contains the sentence, "But many in Western Europe began to refer to the political entity as the 'Greek Empire'." — and it would be absurd to demand "proof" justifying the word "many" in that sentence. What number of proven comments and actions characterized as racially charged or racist would justify the word "many" in your view?I stand by my position that this has already been adequately discussed. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't make any sense comparing a topic that isn't controversial to Donald Trump. They are two completely different topics. "Many" needs to be dozens of listed comments that most people agree are racist. Bob Roberts 09:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Mandruss - no comment on my original point? starship.paint (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: By all means, find some supporting sources (no, we don't need "many" sources, as if that were even definable), and BOLDly add the same sentence to the body. Its existence in the lead already has consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Just saying that it "has consensus" doesn't apply unless people still currently support it, which is the whole point of this section. The sentence isn't sourced, and no proof of it is mentioned anywhere else in the article, or in the corresponding article on Trump's racial views. I want to look for consensus again, since this is the present and not the past. Bob Roberts 09:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Just saying that it "has consensus" doesn't mean anything unless you currently have proof. I strongly disagree with that statement, and I'm far from the only one who does. It means plenty. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I am looking to see what the consensus agrees on right now. Previously, there was only "weak support", and I think this is still an issue. Just because there is consensus at some point in time does not mean that whatever people agreed on is permanent. Bob Roberts 09:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CCC: "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances." (emphasis added) I strongly doubt that a group including many (OOPS! Were there many, or just some??) experienced editors failed to consider the use of the word "many". We don't just overlook words here. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you stop pointlessly arguing about what people said in the past, and instead state your opinions here and now? I am looking for consensus now, so saying that you think previous editors addressed this doesn't mean they did unless you show proof. Don't just say that you "strongly doubt experienced editors blah blah blah" without showing that they actually did. Bob Roberts 09:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake. Now I'm not allowed to state an educated/experienced view about Misplaced Pages editing without providing proof. I'm pretty much done here. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You said that some people did something which they actually did not do. So yeah, if you want to make false claims, at least provide some proof. Bob Roberts 09:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't necessarily have to discuss something to consider it. If nobody has any objection to a word, there is no reason to even bring it up. My point is that the participants did not fail to notice it and consider it, and I don't have to take a survey of the participants to know that. I simply know how editors think at Misplaced Pages, and particularly at this article. I've been a heavy participant here since before the 2016 election. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I never questioned your credibility or experience, but you are wrong to say that "nobody has any objection to the word", because I am someone... Bob Roberts 10:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

In other words, "that consensus doesn't count because I wasn't a part of it". Trust me, we've been here many (or some) times before at this article. That reasoning is simply not sustainable, and it's inconsistent with WP:CCC. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I said that the previous consensus should be reconsidered for new reasons. I never said that past consensus doesn't matter, that would be foolish and naive. Bob Roberts 10:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You haven't brought any new reasons. We have now achieved circularity, so it's time to quit. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have brought new reasons, so why don't you stop babbling about past things and actually respond to my proposal? Bob Roberts 10:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have responded to your proposal, just not in the way you want me to respond. I don't have to stay in the box you build for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? "It's time to quit", as you said, since you aren't making any sense and are arguing for no reason. Bob Roberts 10:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter the sentence does not accurately summarize the body though. Proof of it is mentioned no where else in the article. Again, saying that he has a "long record" doesn't mean anything without a few dozen examples at least. That article just lists a few, not "many". Bob Roberts 09:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this sentence should be removed from the lede, since he does not make many comments on race, and saying that "many of his comments were racist" is too controversial and needs to have actual proof, e.g. a list of dozens of racist comments. The sentence is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, or in the article Racial views of Donald Trump, so the only place this claim is made is in the lede of Donald trump, without proof elsewhere. Bob Roberts 09:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete As I have stated above, I believe this sentence should be deleted. Bob Roberts 09:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Hmm? We don't require that the lead sentences be present in the body, only that they are verifiable and summarize the body. I would say the sources that verify Trump has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions that are perceived as racially motivated. also verify this (e.g Fortune speaks about a "long record"; if someone has long record of doing something, that is the equivalent of saying they have done that many times). Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Another "long record" source. starship.paint (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• @BobRoberts14: were you looking for this? Already in the article. starship.paint (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't currently read that, since my internet isn't working well and only Misplaced Pages is loading. Can you give me a summary of what it says? Bob Roberts 09:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@BobRoberts14: -

While Trump’s actions have landed on both sides of racial currents, his public record depicts a man who most often moves in one direction: overlooking racial sensitivity and concerns in the name of fighting “political correctness.” ... To understand this side of the president, especially after his remarks about the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, we combed the archives (and Internet) for more of Trump’s words and actions on race. We found nearly 100 critical moments.

starship.paint (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you think they were major, and in a short timeframe? That's what I would say means "many". Again, sorry for asking, I just can't access or read the article. Bob Roberts —Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Nearly 100 is many in my book. Doesn't matter the time frame. starship.paint (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but what actually were the "actions", because not answering a question from an African-American in the audience is not major, but technically is an "action". I'm just asking if all 100 were major and prove that he is a racist. Bob Roberts 10:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

1. 1 - the actions don't have to be major, and #2 - we are not proving he is a racist. starship.paint (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be remarkable to not mention this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? Bob Roberts 10:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the wording in the body, from Trump has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions that are perceived as racially motivated to Many of Trump's comments and actions since 1973 have been characterized as racially charged or racist. Two sources were also added. starship.paint (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Just change it to "Many of Trump's actions have been characterizes as racist," since it is shorter and the original sentence was a run-on. Bob Roberts 10:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

And again, there is a difference between "actions" and "comments", since that source cited "actions" and not "comments". Bob Roberts 10:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

... Trump’s words and actions on race. We found nearly 100 critical moments. starship.paint (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

So how about "Many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as racist."? Bob Roberts 10:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure people have already went to war on that in the second discussion. starship.paint (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between "racist" and "racially charged", since to me they basically mean the same thing. Having "since 1973" is definitely not necessary though. Bob Roberts 10:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources said he had a history, I stated which year. starship.paint (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not only does the same wording in the lead not need to be in the body of the article—it shouldn't be. That's poor writing. The lead is a summary of the most significant points. This certainly qualifies as one of the most significant points about the subject. This has been thoroughly discussed in the recent past.- MrX 🖋 12:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  The thing is, MrX - was it really a faithful summary? starship.paint (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. See previous discussions.- MrX 🖋 12:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, MrX has a point. My earlier comment was hasty and I've stricken it. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  Okay then, then revert my wording if you want (keep the sources though). starship.paint (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Or change to is a racist..2600:1702:2340:9470:8870:1FAE:CBFA:2C0C (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support the change Starship.paint proposed - "Many of Trump's comments and actions since 1973 have been characterized as racially charged or racist." It provides a time frame which allows the reader to relate chronologically to the emergence of changing societal values and political correctness, and it's factually accurate. Well done, Starship! _Talk 📧 18:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't need "since 1973", that's just necessary. Also, "racially charged" and "racist" basically mean the same thing, so just remove "racially charged".

• Keep. The argument that something should be deleted from the lead because it doesn't appear in the body is, in my view, probably the most ridiculous perennial argument. I have never subscribed to the view that the lead and the body must be perfectly synced, and even if I did, the obvious solution would be to add the content to the body. R2 (bleep) 21:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Again R2, I don't like your derogatory adjectives, such as "ridiculous", especially since you have been blocked multiple times before and literally saying to an admin "Go the fuck away for 24 hours, you stupid excuse of an admin." No need to bring that hate here. Bob Roberts 21:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@BobRoberts14: - you won't be winning arguments by continually bringing up people's pasts here when it isn't relevant. starship.paint (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I am asking him not to use derogatory words. Bob Roberts 00:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@BobRoberts14: - We are often in the realm of the ridiculous. You can CTRL-F how many "ridiculous" are on this page. starship.paint (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Haha that is true Starship.paint, I was overreacting. Sorry Ahrtoodeetoo. Bob Roberts 00:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(To be clear, I didn't mean by my comment that starship.paint was necessarily suggesting we delete the sentence from the lead. R2 (bleep) 21:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC))

If it`s in the lead..which I believe it should be..it should be elaborated and supported in the article..somewhere back there is the statement that trump doesn`t make statements about race..comments that don`t specifically mention race can still easily perceived as racist. 2600:1702:2340:9470:51E5:CF7:8E89:BDDB (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

First we change the lead to something the body doesn't say, then we change the body to match

, , , There were a lot of sources in the first sentence, listed like "further reading" book cites instead of text references. Makes it more likely to miss duplicates of text references. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's called "bundling", and it's accepted practice per WP:CITEBUNDLE. Duplicates are acceptable when justified, and certainly preferable to unbundling six citations. It's notable that the software throws an error for duplicate refnames only when the citations are different, showing that the software goes out of its way to accept duplicate citations. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know that - you have to scroll WAY down on . I've seen it occasionally and thought it was an error. I just tested adding an inline citation to an article three times—it looks as though the software only checks for the same refname attached to different content and for syntax (don't know if that's the correct term for Misplaced Pages editing); if there is no refname, you can add the same ref as many times as you like. Maybe another editor with more technical expertise can shed some light on it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that I had already closed the 25 April 2019 RfC with the outcome of consensus for characterized. El_C 18:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Noted, and I thought the subject was closed, at least for a little longer than a couple of months. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Space for time is correct..basic 8th grade English composition..create a thesis...8th graders may not call it that but it`s the same thing..make an outline..then elaborate. 2600:1702:2340:9470:8870:1FAE:CBFA:2C0C (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

College records

Onetwothreeip removed some content from Early life and education. The content was regarding that in the 2010s, Trump's college records were moved and sealed, and Trump's lawyer threatened his colleges with civil and criminal action if Trump's college records were revealed. Where should the content go, if not Early life and education? starship.paint (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Right here in the false statements section. 2600:1702:2340:9470:F5D1:4306:F192:C3D7 (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not only a matter of false statements, it's a matter of covering them up. I've kept that content on my user page if anybody wants to do anything with it, and I would appreciate if they informed me when they do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: - so where can it go that is a better place than Early life and education, in your opinion? starship.paint (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint I would say they relate more to his post-2010 political activity, first where he wanted Barack Obama to publish academic records, and then later when they were a point of contention for the 2016 election. His actual academic results, to the extent that they are at all relevant, would belong in the sections related to his early life and education. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip - well okay, so that's where I will insert them. starship.paint (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Do we have an indication that Wharton was threatened, or that Cohen claims this? How it was written seems to be only about Fordham and the Military Academy. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Cohen said Trump directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores ... I’m giving the Committee today copies of a letter I sent at Mr. Trump’s direction threatening these schools Cohen didn't explicitly say Wharton was threatened, but said colleges in the plural, and we do know Trump attended two colleges. Anyway, we don't say Wharton, we say colleges just how Cohen said. starship.paint (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's fair, although the military academy he attended is also described as a college. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't elevate Cohen's statements here; there's too much personal bias and conflict of interest for his allegations about Trump to be taken at face value. — JFG 08:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you think is the conflict of interest here? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Cohen initially pledged total allegiance to Trump, then when he was under legal scrutiny (including for stuff unrelated to Trump), he started placing blame on him. Whenever Trump's and Cohen's versions of any event differ, they both put their own spin on it, and we don't know who says the truth, but Cohen is in jail in part for lying to investigators, so it's hard to take his word for anything unless independently verified. — JFG 08:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It was verified by whom the letter was sent to. Anybody that claims anything negative about Donald Trump is just as susceptible to being labelled as personally biased and that Trump would have a different version. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: - did you miss the part where Cohen actually produced a letter , and that the Military Academy and Fordham both separately confirmed receiving such letters? starship.paint (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. We can rely on the letter, not on Cohen's spin about it (neither on Trump's, obviously). From its timestamp on May 5, 2015, this looks like part of preparations for Trump's campaign announcement, trying to pre-empt requests for disclosure of personal records. I reckon many presidential candidates do that, as well as some presidents. In other words, not exceptional and WP:UNDUE, unless a preponderance of RS call this action exceptional. — JFG 10:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this is all pretty trivial anyway, but what do you mean about other candidates doing this? It's not even necessary at all to do, since institutions can't publish this kind of information without their permission anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Seems wrong section, offtopic. The section Early life and education should be facts of early life and education, not involve allegations about 60 years later. More in the topic of beginning the Presidency. Could also just drop it as trivia not significant enough for BLP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

JFG - I'm stopping at 10 articles. Hill, PBS, WaPo, Australian ABC, Reuters, AP, NYT, Bloomberg, LA Times, Fox News. starship.paint (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Corporate takeover activities

Apparently this topic was archived, but are we not going to make any mention under section Side Ventures that Trump was engaged in corporate takeover activities in the 1980s? Maybe some don't like how his activities were characterized ("corporate raider") but shouldn't we at least note that he was doing it? soibangla (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do. 2600:1702:2340:9470:257F:BC74:33A6:70FE (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add any. The Archive 97 discussion didn’t have much content or interest from editors, but it seems little trading activity happened and the LABEL does not seem widely supported. The article already is too big and jammed, this seems trivial enough to skip. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do. For those who missed it, the archived discussion was triggered by a major story last month in which the New York Times used Trump's tax history to analyze his business career. Despite Markbassett's assertion, the majority of editors who participated in the discussion supported adding content. This is a significant part of Trump's career and deserves at least a few sentences, even if there's no hint of wrongdoing. There are lots and lots of reliable sources on this subject, going back decades. Here are just a few I found from pre-2019 with hardly any digging: . By my understanding Trump didn't do much taking over, so I wouldn't characterize this as "corporate takeover activities." R2 (bleep) 21:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Defeating x numbers of Republican candidates

@JFG: Can you show us where it's considered notable that Donald Trump was nominated for the Republican Party ahead of however many other candidates there were? From what I gather, this has mostly been a self-promotional claim by Trump. What is probably more notable is that he won the nomination despite broad scepticism that he would be successful, but not that there happened to be as many no-chance candidates as there were. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The article about the 2016 Republican primaries makes it clear that the number of candidates was exceptional, and refers to many sources stating that Trump's topping the polls was at best unexpected, at worst unconscionable. — JFG 05:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the exceptional nature of Trump's nomination, but that has little to do with the amount of candidates that were in the primary election. At best this seems to be a WP:SYNTH that there was an extraordinary number of candidates, and that his nomination was extraordinary. The election for next year's Democratic Party nomination is even more crowded but we're unlikely to see any relevance of how many candidates the nominee will have "beaten", unless they are as self-promotional of that as Trump was. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I would readily agree with you if Trump was the only one to note how many people he defeated. However, lots of independent WP:RS have noted this fact, analyzed it at length and attempted to understand it, from both sides of the political bias spectrum, therefore it's a WP:DUE remark. We'll see in about a year whether the 2020 Democratic nominee crows about beating 24 others. Meanwhile, WP:WAX. — JFG 08:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

JFG That goes back to my original question. What are these non-Trump sources that regard this as notable? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's a few reputable sources describing the unexpected wins of Trump against a wide field of more-experienced, more-reasonable, or better-supported primary opponents: I'm sure you can find dozens more. — JFG 10:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Except maybe the first one, these sources just say there were sixteen other candidates, not that he personally defeated them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump didn't "defeat" anyone at all. The electorate whittled down the number of candidates in the primaries, and then chose Trump over Clinton. The narrative that Trump "defeated" opponents is just the way Trump likes to portray it. That Trump prevailed over a large field in the primaries is notable enough for 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries, but I don't think it needs to be in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's common language in politics. Barack Obama uses the word "defeat" twice in election contexts. The fact that the word suits Trump just fine is beside the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump quite ostentatiously defeated the other candidates. Jeb Bush was torn to shreds, Rubio was punched down, even Carson was savagely attacked. All the never-Trumpers kept kicking him, he kicked back harder, and he won. Did any primary contest in living memory display such unabashed aggressivity? Look at the vocabulary used in sources covering this race: bellicose rhetoric is all over the place, and sustained over a full year. There was talk of Trump performing a hostile takeover of the Republican party. Definitely "defeated" is the most appropriate portrayal of what unfolded. — JFG 22:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This is really the wrong way of looking at the election. Even if we accept that he "defeated" people like Bush and Rubio, we can't extend that to all the other candidates. It's also highly misleading as the way this is portrayed makes it seem like it would be harder to win in a primary election with so many candidates, but it's actually easier to win when the opposition is divided. Even with Barack Obama, we might say that he defeated John McCain or Mitt Romney, but we wouldn't be saying he defeated Gary Johnson, Jill Stein or Virgil Goode.

If editors here want to express that Trump was aggressive in attacking primary opponents, there are much better ways of doing this than essentially refactoring Trump's own narrative. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable courses continually mention that Trump prevailed over 16 or 17 (depending on how it is counted) other candidates. If we accept Onetwothreeip's view that it is easier to defeat many candidates than few, then it's still significant. But sources referred to them not as the seven dwarfs (the term used for Bill Clinton's 1992 opponents), but as the best qualified Republican group ever. And of course he then went on to beat the most qualified person ever to run for president. TFD (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That's right. We can mention how many candidates there were (although I don't think that's relevant enough to be on this article), and we can mention his combative style during the primary election, but we shouldn't put those together. Yet another reason to avoid this is because we're not certain how many other candidates we are counting. The supposed level of qualification that these primary candidates have is yet another separate issue and we certainly don't have any indication that this made it harder for Trump to win. I have no idea on what basis you're claiming Hillary Clinton to be "the most qualified person ever" but I don't think that's relevant either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a thought, but Onetwothreeip and I have both used "prevailed" instead of "defeated", and I think it is a more encyclopedic word that better describes the overall primary process. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, Clinton's qualifications were a major campaign issue, as was Trump's lack of qualifications. Barack Obama, who was then serving as U.S. president, said, "There has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill, nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America." Scjessey, I prefer the term prevailed because it better describes what happened. TFD (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That may very well be Barack Obama's opinion, but it's only an opinion. There are very few legally required qualifications. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It was the expressed opinion of the Clinton campaign. If you dig through your emails you should find the memo. It was also commented on in numerous sources. The fact that it happened to be false is irrelevant. What is relevant is the coverage it got. TFD (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Onetwothreeip that the exact number of primary candidates is a bit of a distraction and isn't sufficiently important to include in Trump's lead. I would suggest changing this to say that Trump defeated "a large number" of opponents. I have no strong feelings about "defeated" versus "prevailed over" and would support either one. R2 (bleep) 17:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Given this discussion, something like "prevailed over a large number of candidates" seems the most sensible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to "prevailed over" rather than "defeated", although it dilutes the harshly competitive and adversarial nature of that race: it was basically "everybody against Trump". To the other suggestion, I fail to see how "a large number" is better than "sixteen". — JFG 05:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Because it wasn't everybody against Trump. Candidates were attacking each other and Trump did not attack all the other candidates. We're avoiding using a single number because we're not sure what that single number would be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. "Prevailed over a crowded field" would be a good way of saying it in a vague enough way to accommodate this fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like "prevailed over a crowded field" would satisfy everyone's concerns. Any objections? R2 (bleep) 16:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No: it's unnecessarily imprecise, and next thing we know somebody will ask "why are we being weasely in that sentence?" I'd be fine with "prevailed over sixteen candidates", although "defeated sixteen candidates" is yet more concise. I fail to understand the sudden opposition to the usual "defeated" wording, which has been in the article for years, and is also used in many articles about politicians defeating their opponents at the polls. — JFG 10:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It's necessarily imprecise, actually. Many of Trump's primary opponents defeated themselves, so it would be incorrect to say Trump defeated them all. Moreover, the fact that it was a big field (hence "crowded") is more important than the specific number, as it gives the reader unfamiliar with American politics a sense of what happened. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS

MelanieN - your correction missed the mark per MOS:JOBTITLES. In that particular case (no pun intended) it was not a generic reference, it was a reference to Trump: When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II _Talk 📧 16:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN was correct. "The president" is never capitalized. That's a generic reference, even if it was talking about a specific president. (Notice I didn't write "specific President.") R2 (bleep) 16:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of this, because I recently lost a fight to capitalize First Lady in generic usage. We now say first lady. Yeah, I hate it too, but that's what Reliable Sources now mandate, and that's what MOS calls for. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope - unless MOS:JOBTITLES is changed so that all references are considered generic - While running for president, - and no longer follow direct references - the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II - then we are obligated to stick with MOS. When the sentence states: They argued that the president's issues affect the mental health of the United States population - we are not referring generically to the health of all presidents, we are referring to Trump which is upper case the same as it is with the Queen. See the example I included, and maybe re-read MOS. You are misinterpreting generic with direct reference. _Talk 📧 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I’m not going to defend this usage and I don’t actually like it. But it does appear to be the way Misplaced Pages is now styling this word. I argued against this kind of rule at Talk:First Lady of the United States#Changing First Lady to lowercase and Talk:Hillary Clinton#Capitalization of "first lady”. But I lost the argument; it was won by several people who seem very familiar with the MOS rules. Among other things, they said that the word isn’t capitalized when preceded by “the”. And they cited authoritative sources. I generally honor RS over MOS, but RS agree with them: If you want to argue this, take it up at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. But I do agree that this wording should make it clearer that they are talking about Trump himself, and I will reword it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that we're not "obligated" to follow the MOS, regardless of what it says. By its own intro, it's a guideline intended to help editors write articles consistently. We're not a bureaucracy. If articles are being written inconsistently with the MOS, and consensus supports how those articles are being written, then editing in accordance with the MOS actually undercuts its purpose (as odd as that might sound). The solution, for those who are bothered by differences between the MOS and common practice, is to change the MOS to reflect common practice. R2 (bleep) 20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That's frankly absurd. If MOS followed common practice on this, it would read: "Do whatever seems right to you, and have a nice day." The MOS discussions have closely examined the best available language authorities (which is generally not done at article level) and discussed this at sufficient length, and the product of that effort is the current guideline. There is absolutely no reason why the capitalization criteria for the word "president" should vary between articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of your speculation of what it means, the MOS is still a guideline, not a policy. It is to be applied with common sense, and we are not required to follow it. R2 (bleep) 21:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

We can reasonably be expected to follow it except where one can make a somewhat strong case to deviate. "I disagree with that" is not a somewhat strong case to deviate. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 2 (which I clearly specified for editors' convenience in the edit summary of the edit in which I capitalized that word:) " When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II." Why are we having this discussion? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

How come when you say it, they listen, but when I say the same thing, I get in trouble for bludgeoning... _Talk 📧 20:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Who says anybody's listening? This problem will continue to plague us until the community realizes that MOS is a special animal that reasonably needs to be handled top-down, not bottom-up like other types of guidelines. Or, submits MOS to MFD. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahrtoodeetoo the situation is a bit messier — sometimes it is the President, and there does seem to be allowance of local consensus, plus some misreading of it as directive to reword so as to get to lowercase, and a de facto that the prior MOS saying the other way is still mostly what’s out there. I believe that the change to MOS:JOBTITLES was somewhat wrong for the bullet re titles are capitalised not by their directive of if a ‘the’ precedes it but whether it is followed by ‘of #placename’ making it a proper noun. I was against lowercase ‘the queen of the United Kingdom’ enough to revert edits that way and this seems accepted. That it should always be a P in phrases such as “President of the United States” is not accepted and got changed in a lot of the prominent pages, but most usages are on other pages and seem capitalised. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of titles, such as "the Queen" or "the President" is sometimes made out of respect but is not necessary. TFD (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Attention to business sections

Given that we have subarticles on Trump's business career, there is a lot of summarising and condensing that can be done of the sections we have on this article, with some able to be moved off from here entirely. I will see what I can do but I think this should be as much a priority, or even higher, as the personal life sections in addressing the quality of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind proposing any substantial removals of content here before implementing them, please? R2 (bleep) 16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Energy and Climate

I split the "Energy" and "Climate" sections and added the following language to the Energy section:

− On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783 on Energy Independence. This Executive Order directed the Environmental Protection Agency to suspend, revise, or rescind actions related to the Clean Power Plan that the administration argued stifle the American energy industry. As a result, in early December 2018, the US became a net exporter of oil, after nearly 75 continuous years of dependence on foreign oil.

Even though written from a neutral point of view, cited properly, and relevant, the edit was reverted by Ahrtoodeetoo, stating it was not neutral. I have no clue what the issue with this edit could be, since as you can see it IS written from a neutral point of view, and the edit should be reinstated forthwith.JohnTopShelf (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.epa.gov/energy-independence
2. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-trumps-energy-independence-policy//
3. Javier Blas, Bloomberg, "The U.S. Just Became a Net Oil Exporter for the First Time in 75 Years", December 6, 2018

You make a dubious connection (synth) between EO 13783 and America becoming a net oil exporter, while you do not mention these far more obvious connections: The Obama administration cleared the way for the first exports of unrefined American oil in nearly four decades, allowing energy companies to start chipping away at the longtime ban on selling U.S. oil abroad in 2014 and With the stroke of a pen, President Barack Obama on Friday ended 40 years of U.S. crude oil export limits by signing off on a repeal passed by Congress earlier in the day in 2015. soibangla (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, Obama allowing unrefined oil to be exported has little if anything to do with the U.S. being a NET oil exporter. We became a net oil exporter by producing more oil than we use. That did not happen under Obama, or as a result of Obama stroking a pen. As you are no doubt aware, Obama consistently took measures to reduce, not increase, America's fossil fuel production.JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Obama did indeed take measures consistent with the pressing climate crisis, but at the same time he paved the way for exports. In contrast, Trump's policy ignores (and even denies) the scientific reality of the climate crisis and has paved the way for energy companies to enrich themselves at the expense of the planet. Your edits attempted to uncouple the connection between energy and climate and treat energy like it was in a vacuum. Moreover, your hagiographic verbiage failed to neutrally present the tremendous criticism Trump's actions attracted. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Scjessey (talk): Including language such as "climate crisis", "paved the way for energy companies to enrich themselves at the expense of the planet", "tremendous criticism", and "hagiographic verbiage" in your statement shows your bias and does not further a reasonable discussion of this issue. Further, I am certainly not trying to paint President Trump as a saint. However, I can't help but notice that many editors seem intent on doing just that with the Barack Obama article, which includes about 1% as much critical language as the Donald Trump article.JohnTopShelf (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

We became a net oil exporter by producing more oil than we use is incorrect. We became a net exporter because we exported more than we imported, and this was possible because the export ban was repealed. Moreover, your assertion that this made us oil-independent is incorrect, as we still import lots of oil. soibangla (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is getting reinstated "forthwith" without consensus. There were multiple problems with this content, including:

1. The paragraph mixes the concepts of energy exports (or energy independence) and oil exports (or oil independence). These are quite different things.
2. The critical phrase "as a result," which purports to tie the paragraph together, fails verification. The Bloomberg source doesn't say anything about any executive order.
3. Public statements by the Trump White House aren't reliable for anything.
4. There has to be a really compelling reason to use a primary source in this article, such as EPA and White House statements. If something is noteworthy about Donald Trump, you'll find it in independent secondary sources. The independent secondary sources will guide us in understanding a neutral presentation.
5. There needs to be a showing that the subject matter is noteworthy to fit into this extremely dense (and probably too long) article. This generally requires multiple independent secondary sources demonstrating some long-term significance.
6. If we're going to include content about the rollback of the Clean Power Plan, then we have to treat it in a comprehensive fashion. I haven't followed Trump's efforts closely, but I know what you added isn't comprehensive. Trump's policy to rollback the CPP have been the news for years, and is a lot more than about net energy exports.

R2 (bleep) 18:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

1)The public statement by the White House was to explain Trump's rationale behind the executive order; for that purpose the cite is reliable. 2)The EPA website is cited to show the date of the order to EPA; for that purpose it is the best reference. 3)Achieving oil independence is certainly noteworthy. 4)As you note, the article is dense - it is not the place for a comprehensive treatment of the Clean Power Plan. But there is no point in me continuing, due to the "consensus" requirement, which apparently trumps (no pun intended) all of the other Misplaced Pages policies, including the foundation principle of "neutral point of view". The editors here have demonstrated that there will likely never be consensus for any positive statement regarding Trump's policies or actions, although there can be consensus to characterize him as a liar and racist in the lead section.JohnTopShelf (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You might be more successful in that regard if you focused more on consensus building and less on the ad hominems, the obviousness, and the unfairness of it all. R2 (bleep) 21:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course I am trying to include a positive statement in the article, in an effort to offset all the criticism in the article. (I don't take issue with well-cited, accurate criticism, and there are certainly areas in which Trump should be criticized.) But it should also be obvious that there is a significant difference in the content and point of view of BLP articles about liberals vs. articles about conservatives. A few positive statements about conservatives and a few critical statements about liberals, properly cited of course, would certainly help in tipping the balance ever so slightly toward level.JohnTopShelf (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles should represent facts as perceived by reliable sources. The simple fact of the matter is that in the last 50 years or so, Republican presidents have generally managed to do a lot more bad shit worthy of scathing critique than Democratic presidents, and Trump is perhaps the worst of them all. The same is true for other politicians, although as you get closer to the local level it seems like Democrats tend to be more problematic. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Seriously,Scjessey (talk)? This is your idea of a reasonable, objective debate on an issue? You consider it a fact that Republican presidents have generally managed to do a lot more bad shit worthy of scathing critique than Democratic presidents, and Trump is perhaps the worst of them all? I understand we all have opinions, but statements like yours have no place in this or any discussion.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It's far more simple than that. As a result, in early December 2018, the US became a net exporter of oil, after nearly 75 continuous years of dependence on foreign oil ranges from speculative to false. It really is just that simple. soibangla (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you have misunderstood our neutrality policy. It says that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant items that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This does not mean that Topic A (e.g. Trump) and Topic B (e.g. some other politician) should have the same ratio of "positive" versus "negative" content. In fact, there's very little criticism in the article at all. Most of what's in there is simply a summary of verifiable facts. The fact that some of those facts might reflect negatively or positively on the subject is not our concern. On top of that, neutrality doesn't mean we publish information not supported by the cited sources. R2 (bleep) 23:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• User:JohnTopShelf thanks for adding, and mostly this is good.

• the first line EO and EPA cite are fine,
• the announced intent and White House cite are fine
• the exports exceeding imports and cite are mostly good, but drop the beginning “As a result” as that credits the EO, but Bloomberg credits the Shale boom.

I suggest seeking another cite or two in the energy area, perhaps other events occur between early 2017 and late 2018. (Pipelines perhaps?) You should also consider posting to Presidency of Donald Trump. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User:JohnTopShelf On second thought, fix is too easy so I’ll just edit from what you had. Others can add more Energy material maybe. (Opening Federal areas for drilling, the odd phrase “Energy Dominance”, the “Affordable Clean Energy Plan” (pro-coal), the New Mexico lease, etcetera.) Will see what happens. The prior material was only Climate so it makes sense to at least fix it’s title anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You might think the EPA and White House citations are fine, but that doesn't mean they're supported by consensus. R2 (bleep) 00:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to not understand that sources are never a matter of consensus; they are presented to satisfy WP:V give the source so people can check it is from something other than beliefs and experiences of editors, and that the article text is a fair paraphrase. Never a matter of consensus, but rather a matter of factually where did you get that article line. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It really should go without saying that the White House and the EPA are not neutral sources. If this is notable in any way then we should expect reliable news media sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I followed the suggestions and advice, and fixed my edit. Thank you to everyone for your assistance in making this article better.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Your latest edits did not follow the suggestions and advice. You cherry-picked some feedback and ignored the rest. R2 (bleep) 16:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's a fact check of the claim that the US became a net exporter of crude oil: No, The U.S. Is Not A Net Exporter Of Crude Oil. We need to do a bit more research before including this claim, especially in Misplaced Pages's voice. – bradv🍁 13:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's another Bloomberg article from just days later:

The U.S. Energy Information Administration has published its first detailed monthly oil forecast for 2020 and it shows something that should strike fear into the hearts of OPEC ministers — from the fourth quarter, America will export more oil than it imports. This won’t make the U.S. independent of the global supply chain.

Bloomberg is highly reliable, but every reliable source errs occasionally, and I think the Bloomberg article in the edit was seriously botched. Again, the reason exports have soared is because the 40-year export ban was repealed in Dec 2015. This was done in part due to the fracking boom, because it created a huge supply glut that had nowhere to go, but it couldn't have gone anywhere unless the export ban had been lifted. That was the key factor at play, not Trump's policies, not the fracking boom. soibangla (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

False Statements

In the "False Statements" section there is a sentence that reads: "His falsehoods have also become a distinctive part of his political identity." The citation is to an opinion article in the New Yorker. This is not a reliable source - it is an opinion. The sentence needs to be removed.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No, that's a news article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/trumps-escalating-war-on-the-truth-is-on-purpose - MrX 🖋

Characterize it as you may, the statement is clearly an opinion, and an inflammatory one at that. The sentence should be removed unless there is another, reliable, cite for this.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding "clearly" to your argument does not change the facts. The New Yorker article is a news article. The reporter stated a fact, that is not in serious dispute.- MrX 🖋 13:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@MrX Calling an assertion like this from a well known liberal magazine a “fact” from a “news article” is transparently biased and ludicrous. This must be removed to lend some semblance of credibility to Wiki as an encyclopedia. How about: “Biden’s numerous changes of positions over the years on salient issues such as abortion for the sake of political expediency has become part of his political identify.”? To call such an assertion part of a “news article” brings to mind Benjamin Franklin’s admonition about names: “If you call an ox a bull he’d thank you for the compliment, but he would much rather have back that which was so wrongfully taken from him.”HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

HistoryBuff14, do you need clarification on how a clause like "for the sake of political expediency" violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR? And the New Yorker is a legitimate source. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

HistoryBuff14, feel free to cite reliable sources that state that Trump's lies are not a part of his political identity. I'll wait. I'll also wait for you to cite the Misplaced Pages policy that says that " well known liberal magazine" are incapable of reporting facts.- MrX 🖋 16:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu&nbspYes, I do recognize such! That was the point of my hypothetical counterexample of the Trump description from a biased source. The New Yorker is a valid source, including quotes that are clearly opinion if noted as such as would be the hypothetical Biden example. Apparently, this eluded your comprehension. I call for a vote on removing this quote unless it is clearly cited as an opinion.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen a near-continuous drumbeat of news coverage about Biden's waffling. Therein lies the difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

HistoryBuff14, I suppose that what has "eluded my comprehension" is how you can say "The New Yorker is a valid source" a sentence after calling it a "biased source". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Even if it was an opinion, the correct solution is not deletion, but attribution. We document facts and opinions here, and opinions are often the most interesting and influential part of the "sum total of human knowledge" which we are tasked with documenting. Also, if an opinion is indistinguishable from fact, the attribution is questionable, as framing factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well and serves to undermine the factual nature of the content. It would serve to frame facts as mere opinions which can be ignored. Self-(Redacted). -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear BullRangifer (talk): With all due respect, your comment (framing factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well) makes no sense. There is no such thing as a "factual opinion". A statement is either a fact, or it is an opinion. The two terms are mutually exclusive. Also - opinions are not part of "sum total of human knowledge". That is simply ridiculous. To characterize any opinion as fact, and include it as part of an article and part of the human knowledge base, poisons the well.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf, maybe that was clumsily-written, so here goes... We often use sources which are literally labeled "Opinion", and then some editor comes along who doesn't know the facts of the matter, and they claim that a fact stated in that opinion article is just the author's opinion.

It is such editors who create a problem by trying to force attribution of a fact because it was written in the author's opinion article. Those who know the facts will say there is no need for attribution of such a fact, while those who are ignorant of those facts will argue for attribution of the opinion.

Opinion statements nearly always include facts, and knowing the difference requires knowledge of those facts. In short, some opinions are indistinguishable from facts, hence such opinions are essentially stating facts. That may not make sense to you, but if you really want to get the point you will. If you wish to quibble, then you'll also do that. Whatever.

"Characterizing any opinion as fact" is not allowed here, and characterizing a fact as opinion is also wrong. Knowing the difference is wisdom. If enough RS state that such and such is the way it is, then we state it as fact, in Misplaced Pages's voice, even if a fringe minority disputes it. (We often note that view, giving it extremely minor weight.) Unfortunately, there are quite a few people who think Trump is honest, but those sources are so ignorant of the facts that their counter-factual opinions are discounted and generally ignored. We don't base our content on unreliable sources.

Opinions are very much a part of the "sum total of human knowledge". People know and are aware of facts, nonsense, lies, conspiracies, fringe nonsense, religious beliefs, etc. We are required to document all of this, as long as it's been documented in RS. If it doesn't even make it that far, then we don't.

Misplaced Pages would serve a very limited purpose if it only documented unarguable facts. It would also be boring as hell. Most RS document plenty of opinions and controversies. (Yes, controversies wouldn't be allowed here because they are often differences of opinion.) It would ignore most of what society discusses and what predicates many important events and wars. If you want to exclude use and documentation of opinions here, you'll have to change some policies. That is not done on this page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is the sort of content that we include all the time, all over Misplaced Pages. It comes from one of the most reputable outlets out there. There's nothing "opinion" about it. R2 (bleep) 16:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This sort of content is indeed included in many Misplaced Pages articles, which is problematic. Including opinion, especially when characterized as fact, should never be allowed as it undermines the credibility of Misplaced Pages.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Claims about effects on Misplaced Pages's credibility are 100% subjective and unprovable, and really have no place in content discussions. Regardless, to any extent that compliance with Misplaced Pages policies and principles harms Misplaced Pages's credibility among people who don't know the first thing about those policies and principles, that is just a cross we have to bear as an encyclopedia. I think we'll survive. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages no doubt has zero credibility in the eyes of at least a third of the U.S. population because it says unfavorable things about Trump, completely consistent with policy (WP:PUBLICFIGURE among others). To these people, neutrality means your material about the subject is neither positive nor negative, and that's because they know nothing about our policies. To some, it can be positive and negative, but only in equal amounts (false balance). To some, even, we should say only positive things about Trump, because that's the "truth". And there are just as many Trump opponents who feel we should say only negative things because that's the "truth".Should we modify our content to accommodate these groups and earn back their trust? Of course not. So credibility has nothing to do with it, does it? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The point I was making, which was apparently lost among the rants about modifying content to appease certain groups, is that articles should be factual. Opinion should not be included in articles, in particular if it is characterized as fact.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The point I was making, which was apparently lost in your attempt to sidestep it, is that you should limit your comments to policy questions and stop trying to hold Misplaced Pages's credibility hostage. Just leave that word out of it, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump Heights

How about a reference to Trump Heights in the Israel section?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please ask yourself if this purely symbolic naming of an empty patch of ground in an illegally occupied part of Syria is biographically significant. I would argue the answer is an emphatic no. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't agree on a lot, but I have to agree with Scjessey (talk) on this, although I would use slightly less emphasis on the no.;)-JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Environmental positions in lead

Shouldn't his environmental policies be included in the lead? Arguably, it's been one of the policies in government that he has effectively changed by means of executive orders and control over various governmental agencies. The fact that he has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, stopped the planned , and his belief that humans are not behind climate change, among other factors, seems to be independent enough to include in the lead. Does anyone have any objections to adding it? MarvellingLiked (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The Paris agreement pull out is already in the lead. His views on climate change are pretty much boiler plate Republican. His actions with respect to the Clean Power Plan are not really lead worthy.- MrX 🖋 16:11, 21 June 2019 (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 Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism 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 pages referenced by the press
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment