Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:56, 25 August 2016 editZigzig20s (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers192,440 edits →Birtherism and 2000 Reform Party: not in the lede← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:31, 9 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,901 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 186) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|hide_find_sources=yes}}
	{{pp-blp\|expiry=00:00, 11 November 2016\|small=yes}}
	{{~~Skip to talk~~}}		{{Controversial}}
			{{Calm}}
	{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
			{{Warning RS and OR}}
	{{Article history\|action1=GAN
			{{American politics AE\|Consensus required=no\|BRD=yes\|1RR=no}}
	\|action1date=15:43, 2 June 2006
			{{tmbox
			\|image = ]
			\|text = '''Want to add new information about Donald Trump?'''<br/>Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
			{{div col}}
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			{{div col end}}
			... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{t\|Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!
			}}
			{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell \|class=B \|blp=activepol \|collapsed=yes \|vital=yes \|listas=Trump, Donald \|1=
			{{WikiProject Biography \|a&e-work-group=Yes \|a&e-priority=Mid \|politician-work-group=Yes \|politician-priority=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Business \|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Climate change\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Conservatism \|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography \|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject New York City \|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Politics \|importance=High \|American=Yes \|American-importance=Top \|political-parties=yes \|political-parties-importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Television \|importance=Mid \|american=yes}}
			{{WikiProject United States \|importance=Top \|USTV=Yes \|USTV-importance=Mid \|USGov=Yes \|USGov-importance=High \|USPE=Yes \|USPE-importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject United States Presidents \|importance=Top \|trump=yes \|trump-importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject 2010s \|importance=Top}}
			}}
			<!-- end wikiproject banner bundle -->
			{{Banner holder \|text= Page history \|collapsed=y \|1=
			{{Article history
			\|action1=GAN
			\|action1date=15:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
			\|action1link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA Failing
	\|action1result=failed		\|action1result=failed
	\|action1oldid=56507759		\|action1oldid=56507759

	\|action2=GAN		\|action2=GAN
	\|action2date=17:59, 12 February 2007		\|action2date=17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
	\|action2link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA failed		\|action2link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA failed
	\|action2result=failed		\|action2result=failed
	\|action2oldid=107442121		\|action2oldid=107442121
	\|currentstatus=FGAN}}
	{{2016 US Election AE}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|blp=yes\|activepol=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProject Biography\|living=Yes\|class=B\|a&e-work-group=Yes\|a&e-priority=Mid\|politician-work-group=Yes\|politician-priority=High\|listas=Trump, Donald}}
	{{WikiProject Business\|class=B\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Donald Trump\|class=B\|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Television\|class=B\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject New York City\|class=B\|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Florida\|class=B\|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject Politics\|class=B\|importance=Mid\|American=Yes\|American-importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Professional wrestling\|class=B\|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject Conservatism \|class=B\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject United States\|class=B\|importance=High\|USPE=Yes\|USPE-importance=Mid\|USTV=Yes\|USTV-importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania\|class=B\|importance=Low}}
	{{WP1.0 \|class=B \|importance=Low \|v0.7=pass \|category=socsci}}
	\|collapsed=yes
	}}
	{{American English}}
	{{calm}}
	{{controversial}}
	{{press \| collapsed=yes\|author=Cuozzo, Steve\|date=November 16, 2013\|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/ \|title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages\|org='']''
	\|url2=http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/22/9014525/someone-just-deleted-donald-trumps-entire-wikipedia-page \|org2='']'' \|date2=July 22, 2015 \|author2=Popper, Ben \|title2=Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page\|author3=Merrill, Jeremy\|date3=February 1, 2016\|url3=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html \|title3=On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate\|org3='']'' \|url4=http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-truly-bizarre-sections-otherwise-normal-websites_p2/ \|title4=5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day \|author4=Germ, Erik \|org4='']'' \|date4=May 28, 2016}}
	{{Top25 \| place = \| week = ]}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	\|minthreadsleft = 2
	\|counter = 21
	\|algo = old(7d)
	\|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d
	}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
	}}
	{{Friendly search suggestions}}
	{{Auto archiving notice\|bot=lowercase sigmabot III \|age= \|units= 7 days}}
	{\| class=wikitable style="background-color:rgba(0,0,255,0.1); margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"
	! Page views for this article over the last 30 days
	\|-
	\| {{Graph:PageViews}} <BR>
	\|}

			\|action3=GAN
	== POV lead. ==
			\|action3link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA1
			\|action3date= 17 September 2016
			\|action3result=failed
			\|action3oldid=739866707

			\|action4=GAN
			\|action4date=03:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
			\|action4link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA2
			\|action4result=failed
			\|action4oldid=782109977

			\|action5=GAN
	The lead does not come close to being a summary of the article and the controversial aspects of this individual. - ] ] 21:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|action5date=08:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
	:Can you be more specific? I, for one, think there should be sentence about Trump's 2011 birther campaign. --] (]) 21:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|action5link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA3
	::As I understand, Trump called for release of the certificate, it was released two days later, and that was that. While left-wing blogs have certainly made a huge thing of it, I'm not convinced that it is lead-worthy.] (]) 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|action5result=failed
	:::Trump's birther campaign lasted for 6 weeks, it was ''hugely'' covered by the mainstream media to the point where it received non-stop attention on cable news networks, and has been regularly cited since then as laying the groundwork for his 2016 campaign. 's an example. --] (]) 22:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|action5oldid=870721866
	:::And and are examples of stories about media attention given to Trump's birther campaign. --] (]) 22:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

	:::: I don't believe it's had the long-term notability to make it ledeworthy, and it's not a significant part of his career or his campaign.] (]) 23:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|action6=GAN
	::::The last two links are examples that are both from April 2011. The first link to the NY Times (dated July 3, 2016) may be worth including as a reference in this Misplaced Pages article, if it's not already there, but it explains that the controversy was tightly confined in time in March and April 2011: "Then, almost as quickly as it began, the controversy subsided. And several weeks later, Mr. Trump decided not to seek the Republican nomination. Though he continued to do well in polls, he seemed to be more focused on his reality television pursuits. Now, Mr. Trump almost assiduously refuses to discuss the topic, which, according to several people close to him, was always more about political performance art than ideology. 'I don’t talk about that anymore,' Mr. Trump told the MSNBC host Chris Matthews after a Republican debate last year." I think this was a pretty discrete episode that has not had much lasting impact. Below, I quote what this BLP currently says about it, and would be interested to know whether that seems okay.] (]) 19:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|action6date=18:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	:Also, if we're looking to trim stuff from the lead, I think the entire 4th paragraph can be cut (about delegates and all that). It's highly procedural and yesterday's news. --] (]) 21:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|action6link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA4
	::I shortened it.] (]) 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|action6result=failed
	:::I think all of ] recommendations would help make it less POV-pushing, but I don't think it will be NPOV until the racism issue is addressed and some set of reference similar to these are restored<ref>See:
			\|action6oldid=906418948
	* {{cite news \| work = USA Today \| title = Poll shows 'racist' comments about federal judge hurt Trump in Florida, Ohio \| first = Ledyard \| last = King \| url = http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/06/21/racist-comments-federal-judge-hurt-donald-trump-florida-ohio/86172262/\| date = June 21, 2016}}
	* {{cite news \| work = The New York Times \| title = Paul Ryan Calls Donald Trump's Attack on Judge 'Racist,' but Still Backs Him \| first1 = Jennifer \| last1=Steinhauer \| first2 = Jonathan \| last2 = Martin \| first3= David \| last3= Herszenhorn \| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-gonzalo-curiel.html \| date = June 7, 2016}}
	* {{cite news \| work = The Week \| title = Donald Trump is running the most explicitly racist campaign since 1968 \| first = Paul \| last = Waldman \| url = http://theweek.com/articles/590711/donald-trump-running-most-explicitly-racist-campaign-since-1968 \| date = November 25, 2015}}
	* {{cite news \| work = Fortune \| title = Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows\| first = Michael \| last = D'Antonio \| url = http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/ \| date = June 7, 2016}}
	* {{cite news \| work = Politico \| title = Ryan to Trump: 'Anti-Semitic images' have no place in campaign \| first = Nick \| last = Gass \| url = http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/paul-ryan-trump-tweet-225099 \| date = July 5, 2016}}
	* {{cite news \| url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/mitt-romney-donald-trump-racism/\|title=Mitt Romney says Donald Trump will change America with 'trickle-down racism'\|last=Schleifer\|first=Theodore\|date=June 11, 2016\|work=CNN\|accessdate=July 19, 2016}}
	* {{cite news \| publisher = NBC News \| title = Donald Trump's 'Star of David' Tweet About Hillary Clinton Posted Weeks Earlier on Racist Feed \| first1 = Elisha \| last1= Fieldstadt \|first2= Ali \| last2= Vitali \| date = July 4, 2016\| url = http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-s-star-david-tweet-about-hillary-clinton-posted-n603161 \| quote = This is not the first time Trump has been forced to disavow or distance himself from anti-Semitic or white supremacist connections... Leaders of his own party were publicly appalled. Trump eventually tweeted an official disavowal and blamed a faulty earpiece for his initial response. But anti-Semitic and white nationalist rhetoric has continued to dog the candidate. Trump has been accused of knowingly whipping up racist sentiment among his supporters. He denies it but declines to explain how anti-Semitic memes keeping making their way into his own tweets.}}</ref> ] (]) 01:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	</blockquote>
	{{reflist talk}}
	], as I understand your position about the tag atop the article, you agree that it's overkill. Indeed any use it has had has already been served. I hope that all of us editors don't get into a ]. As to your concerns about the birther stuff, I think the place to start is the body of the BLP; do you feel that the following info from the body of the BLP is a fair description, and if not then how would you modify it?
	{{cquote\|In April 2011, Trump waded into the controversy about President Barack Obama's proof of eligibility as a natural born citizen: "His grandmother in Kenya said he was born in Kenya and she was there and witnessed the birth, okay?" Trump's claim was based upon an incomplete transcript filed years earlier in a court case. Trump also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his Ivy League schools, and called for release of school records, plus release of a long form birth certificate. Two days later, the White House sought to put the longstanding matter to rest with release of the long form. Trump said he hoped it "checks out", and expressed pride about his role. When asked years later where Obama was born, Trump said: "I really don't know. I mean, I don't know why he wouldn't release his records. But you know, honestly, I don't want to get into it".}}
	] says about the article, "I don't think it will be NPOV until the racism issue is addressed and some set of reference similar to these are restored". Well, the lead does not include ''any'' references, so the tag should apparently be moved from the top to whatever section Gouncbeatduke thinks those references belong. Per ], the lead is supposed to summarize the article body, and the lead currently seems to do that. Getting to the list of references that Gouncbeatduke wants inserted, the list is puzzling. Consider the first two:
	*King, Ledyard (June 21, 2016). "Poll shows 'racist' comments about federal judge hurt Trump in Florida, Ohio". USA Today.
	*Steinhauer, Jennifer; Martin, Jonathan; Herszenhorn, David (June 7, 2016). "Paul Ryan Calls Donald Trump's Attack on Judge 'Racist,' but Still Backs Him". The New York Times.
	We already say: "Many legal experts were critical of Trump's attacks on Curiel, often viewing them as racially charged, unfounded, and an affront to the concept of an independent judiciary.<ref>{{cite news\| work = Wall Street Journal \| title = Trump Says Judge's Mexican Heritage Presents 'Absolute Conflict' \| url = http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-gonzalo-curiel-1464911442 \| date = June 3, 2016 \| first= Brent \| last = Kendall \| quote = Donald Trump on Thursday escalated his attacks on the federal judge presiding over civil fraud lawsuits against Trump University, amid criticism from legal observers who say the presumptive GOP presidential nominee's comments are an unusual affront on an independent judiciary}}</ref><ref>{{cite news \| work = The Atlantic \| url = http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-gonzalo-curiel/485636/ \| title = Why Is Donald Trump So Angry at Judge Gonzalo Curiel? \| first = Matt \| last = Ford \| date=June 3, 2016 \| quote= A growing chorus of American legal scholars from the left, right, and beyond says remarks threaten the rule of law. The real-estate businessman also has another problem: There's no evidence whatsoever in the public record to support Trump's claims about Curiel}}</ref><ref>{{cite news \| work = Washington Post \| title = Trump's personal, racially tinged attacks on federal judge alarm legal experts \| url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/06/01/437ccae6-280b-11e6-a3c4-0724e8e24f3f_story.html \| first1 = Jose \| last1 = DelReal \| first2 = Katie \| last2=Zezima \|date = June 1, 2016 \| quote= Donald Trump's highly personal, racially tinged attacks on a federal judge overseeing a pair of lawsuits against him have set off a wave of alarm among legal experts, who worry that the Republican presidential candidate's vendetta signals a remarkable disregard for judicial independence}}</ref><ref>{{cite news \| publisher = ABC News \| title = Legal Experts Worry After Trump Attacks Judge for Alleged Bias, Judge's Brother Calls Trump a 'Blowhard' \| url = http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/legal-experts-worry-trump-attacks-judge-alleged-bias/story?id=39589590 \| date = June 3, 2016 \| first1= Shushannah \| last1 = Walshe \| first2=Meghan \| last2=Keneally}}</ref><ref>{{cite news \| work = TIME \| url = http://time.com/4356690/donald-trump-judge-mexican-legal-arguments/ \| title = Donald Trump’s Attacks On Judge’s Ethnicity Brings Back Sordid History \| date = June 3, 2016 \| first = Haley \| last = Edwards}}</ref><ref>{{cite news \| work = New York Times \| quote = Experts in legal ethics say that seeking to discredit a judge is not a winning strategy and that the suggestion that Judge Curiel could not treat a case fairly because of his ethnicity raises questions about Mr. Trump’s ability to appoint judges \| title = That Judge Attacked by Donald Trump? He's Faced a Lot Worse \| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-university-judge-gonzalo-curiel.html \| date = June 3, 2016 \| first =Alan \| last=Rappeport}}</ref>{{talkref}}
	I think that's more than adequate, and I don't see why to add the proposed King and Steinhauer references, which would be overkill. Gouncbeatduke's next suggested reference is this:
	*Waldman, Paul (November 25, 2015). "Donald Trump is running the most explicitly racist campaign since 1968". The Week.
	This is an opinion piece. I strongly feel that a BLP like this needs facts much more than it needs opinions. I'm not trying to cram this BLP full of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity opinions, and that's a good thing, right? Skipping to Gouncbeatduke's suggested references regarding a Star of David:
	*Gass, Nick (July 5, 2016). "Ryan to Trump: 'Anti-Semitic images' have no place in campaign". Politico.
	*Fieldstadt, Elisha; Vitali, Ali (July 4, 2016). "Donald Trump's 'Star of David' Tweet About Hillary Clinton Posted Weeks Earlier on Racist Feed". NBC News.
	I think this would best go (if anywhere) into the Trump campaign article, but not this one. This kerfuffle had no staying power. All the news reports about it were confined to a single week, and we haven't heard any more about it since then. For good reason! , "Based on the evidence available, it seems unlikely that the Trump campaign intended to put out a Star of David image. In fact, the campaign moved to replace the star with a circle when the image gained attention." So, Gouncbeatduke's long list of references really have nothing to do with the lead (because the lead doesn't include any footnotes at all), and even in the body of the BLP these references would be very inappropriate.] (]) 04:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], it is clear to anyone editing this article that you are pro-Trump (which is fine), but the fact of the matter is that there has not been a presidential candidate (in my adult life) that has stated as many controversial statements as Trump has. This '''needs to be reflected in the article''' in accordance with ]. -- ] (]) 23:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	::] recently said that the voter has a choice between ] (with Trump) versus suicide (with Clinton). Suffice it to say that I think Sowell is a very wise man. The lead says, "His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots." Obviously that should remain, and I think it addresses your point at least partly. He does say a lot of things like that, but each individual one seems to be forgotten when the next one causes another stir, and in each case a lot of non-neutral media makes each controversial comment more controversial. I think we can discuss this phenomenon and maybe have the article address it more, but I don't think the lead is inaccurately summarizing the body of the article. We're only supposed to cover stuff that has staying power per ], and we do have a whole subsection titled "comments about fringe theories". Anyway, '''I do not intend to remove the POV tag in the 2016 election section right now, only the one at the top of the article.'''] (]) 00:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

			\|action7 = FAC
	:{{u\|Anythingyouwant}}, this thread was opened to talk about the lead, so let's keep it to that subject. I'm sympathetic to the idea that the lead is lacking in some departments and I support keeping the {{t\|pov-lead}} tag until this issues are resolved. I'd like to hear from {{u\|Cwobeel}} what their specific concerns are. Here are my responses on specific issues. Feel free to interlineate. --] (]) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|action7date = 2019-08-31
	:*''birtherism:'' Trump may have only hyped up Obama's birth certificate for 6 weeks, but the significance of his birtherism goes ''way'' beyond those 6 weeks, as demonstrated by the WaPo article (and many others). Trump's birtherism has been cited regularly by the news media ever since 2011. Completely excluding it from the lead section reads as POV in my view. --] (]) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|action7link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Donald Trump/archive1
	:::I count fourteen (14) footnotes in the birther material that's in the article now, none of which is WaPo. I don't see how we can discuss putting birther stuff in the lead until we have some consensus that it's taken care of in the body of the article. This is required by ]. The body of the article does not currently indicate much long-term significance, and the mentions about it in the media since 2011 have almost always been in passing.] (]) 05:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|action7result = failed
	:*''racism:'' There has certainly been much written by Trump's racism but I'm not aware of any consensus among reliable sources that we can cite in any sort of concise way. We already say many of his statements are controversial, and perhaps that's enough? As a practical matter I ''highly'' doubt we'll ever gain consensus to put anything about racism in the lead section so honestly I'm inclined not to perpetuate the flamefest. --] (]) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|action7oldid = 913215099
	:::Agreed.] (]) 05:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	:*''lies:'' I think a sentence may be warranted on Trump's dishonesty, which has received a tremendous amount of media coverage. Thoughts? --] (]) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Well, I guess the most recent episode was "Hillary founded ISIS". He claims it was sarcasm. I think any sane person realizes he wasn't saying that Hillary convened a bunch of terrorists and urged them to start killing people. Again, this has to be fleshed out in the article body before it could possibly go in the lead. This is required by ]. If the lead accurately summarizes what's in the article body right now, then there's no reason to discuss the lead right now. Lies ''about'' Trump have also occurred, BTW, but maybe that's too tangential for this BLP.] (]) 05:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::{{u\|Anythingyouwant}}, re: "Hillary founded ISIS", His sarcasm seems to elude many observers including his running mate<ref>{{cite web\|last1=Wallace\|first1=Chris\|title=Gov. Mike Pence talks role in campaign; Sen. Claire McCaskill on new controversy facing Clinton\|url=http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/08/14/gov-mike-pence-talks-role-in-campaign-sen-claire-mccaskill-on-new-controversy/\|website=Fox News Sunday\|publisher=Fox News\|accessdate=16 August 2016}}</ref>. He made the statement on Wednesday, defended it as spoken to Hugh Hewitt and didn't walk it back to sarcasm until Friday <ref>{{cite web\|last1=Kopan\|first1=Tal\|title=Donald Trump tries to walk back claim Obama founded ISIS: 'Sarcasm'\|url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/donald-trump-obama-clinton-isis-founder-sarcasm/\|website=CNN\|publisher=CNN\|accessdate=15 August 2016}}</ref>
	{{refs}} ] (]) 00:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Gaas, your first link, to politicususa, is very unpersuasive. As far as I can tell, they don't have a Misplaced Pages article, and even if they did, disqualifies them from being a ] for our purposes.] (]) 03:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::: OK, I've replaced the ref with a more persuasive one -- same info.] (]) 02:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	::{{u\|Anythingyouwant}}, I'm not aware of any requirement that content can't be added to the lead section unless it's also covered in the body. If that were the case we'd be slashing a good deal of the lead section content across the encyclopedia. --] (]) 00:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Per ], "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." There's even a special tag to put in the lead when it's not supported by the article body.] (]) 00:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::The point of the sentence, ''"This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article,"'' is to exclude the very type of argument you're making here, which is to keep a subject out of the lead section until it has been covered in the body (or in the case of the birther stuff, to keep it in the lead section until we have consensus that our coverage in the body is deep enough). The lead can improved and then the body can be harmonized with it later. I personally am not particularly interested in the body. --] (]) 03:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::] is very clear that the lead is supposed to summarize the body. If you don't care what's in the body and only care about putting stuff in the lead, then that directly contradicts ], in my opinion. Nothing can be excluded from the lead provided that it summarizes what's in the body of the article. Even putting aside ], as a matter of common sense, shouldn't we first boil down the reliable sources to something that can fit into the body of the article, before boiling it down further to obtain something for the lead? Instead, I can't even get you to say whether the body of the article adequately covers the issue. You really think we should put statements of fact into the lead, without any footnotes in the lead, and without any discussion of those facts in the body of the article? That strikes me as very bad editing, and I hope you don't support it.] (]) 04:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::Echoing ]: there is absolutely ''nothing'' in ] that justifies removing material solely because it's not contained in the body of the article. Yes, the lead and body should be harmonized, but there is no prescription for which should be edited first. In fact, as DrFleischman points out, the guideline specifically states that information should ''not'' be removed from the lead in these situations. It is completely legitimate to first work material into the lead, and then flesh it out in the body of the article, and you are badly misrepresenting the guideline, as well as fellow editors' positions.<p>], you've now made this specious argument repeatedly to justify removing well-sourced, relevant material from the lead. (A more cynical person than I might also note that you tend to employ this misrepresentation only to remove material which reflects less-than-positively on Trump). Since you've repeatedly cited ], a reasonable person would assume that you've actually read it. We are thus left with the question of why you're not only misrepresenting the guideline, but using it in a way that the guideline itself specifically warns against. That's a concerning behavior, but outside the scope of this talkpage. For now, please stop making this argument. It would be tiresome to have to continually correct your misrepresentation of the guideline, although it is a good reminder that such assertions about policy should always be verified given your track record. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::No MastCell, I will not stop making the good faith argument that we should not put statements of fact into the lead, without any footnotes in the lead, and without any discussion of those facts in the body of the article, unless and until someone convinces me that I'm mistaken. If you are confident that I am mistaken, then you should have no trouble rallying a consensus in your favor, instead of trying to shut me up.] (]) 04:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::That's another deliberate misrepresentation: I don't see anyone advocating the inclusion of unsourced material in the lead. And you've already been shown the portion of the guideline which explicitly OKs adding material to the lead first, and then developing it in the body. This is not good-faith editing on your part. If you persist in this disruptive and dishonest behavior, then I will request that the discretionary sanctions covering this article be invoked, so that the rest of the editors here can get on with their work. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::You have been an active editor at this article this summer, ]. Thankfully, this means I can view your comments as those of a fellow editor, and no more. If Dr. Fleischman is not proposing to put facts into the lead without footnotes and without support in the article body, then he can say so and can clarify what he's proposing. He's already said quite clearly that he doesn't care what's in the article body on this subject, and of course this lead excludes all footnotes. I am an honest man, MastCell. For over nine years at multiple articles and other venues, you have made bogus arguments to the contrary. I suggest you stop before you embarrass yourself further.] (]) 04:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}}As explained at user talk of ], I am de-watchlisting this article immediately. I have no interest in being railroaded, or in being party to an article that is subject to unlimited POV-pushing.] (]) 04:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:<s>Thank goodness. This isn't the first time Anythingyouwant has blatantly misinterpreted guidelines and other editors' comments to push their editing agenda. --] (]) 18:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)</s>
	::], that comment was inappropriate. I suggest you strike it - or delete it together with my response. Please remember to discuss article content, not personalities, and remember that this page is under Discretionary Sanctions, which includes the requirement to abide by "expected standards of behaviour". --] (]) 20:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

			\|action8 = PR
	: ]'s assertions are ''not supported'' by ]:
			\|action8date = 2020-04-29
	::: This template is specifically intended to ] a fact in the ] of an already well-sourced article, where that lead is clearly intended to function as a summary of the content, but the fact tagged does not appear in the body.
			\|action8link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Donald Trump/archive1
	::: ''BLPs''
			\|action8result= reviewed
	::: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about ] should be '''removed immediately'''.
			\|action8oldid = 953988039
	: Such facts should be removed per BLP. If reinstated, I propose that they could briefly be tagged '''' to alert other editors and forestall edit-warring. --] (]) 08:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I think you're making a mess by trying to get around ]. First of all, if template documentation conflicts with an existing guideline, then it should be obvious that the template documentation needs to be updated to match our guidelines. We use guidelines to describe our best practices—not obscure template documentation. Secondly, you're misinterpreting the template documentation. That template can be used to flag ''unsourced'' items in the lead, if they're not sourced or covered later in the article body. In this case, the lead material is sourced, so the template is inappropriate. Likewise, your citation of BLP isn't relevant, since the material in question is well-sourced and meets BLP criteria; there is absolutely no justification to remove such material on BLP grounds. Finally, the template does ''not'' mandate removal of material from the lead; rather, it is meant to flag the need for a citation for unsourced material in the lead (this should be obvious from the title of the template, which includes the words "citation needed").<p>I'm not sure why people are working so hard to get around the relatively straightforward guidance in ]. Separately, no interpretation of the template documentation can excuse Anythingyouwant's misrepresentation of ], but that is a behavioral issue for another venue. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Are you accusing me of deliberately lying, ]? This is the fourth time in the last week that you have accused me at this page of "misrepresentation", and that's what the word means. How many more times can I expect this from you at this article talk page? If such serious and insulting attacks are "for another venue" then why do you insist on using this venue again and again and again and again? Editors often interpret policy and guidelines somewhat differently, and I am happy to discuss this particular one, and revise my views about it as I already have. At first, I discussed the policy here from memory (]), and then I went and checked it to see if I got it wrong, and I then quoted the pertinent part at length so everyone can read it. Editors can edit the lead, but then if it is not supported by the body of the article the two must be harmonized so the lead summarizes the body; but no contentious material can be put into the lead, without support in the article body, if that material is unsourced. This lead does not include footnotes, so any contentious material put into this lead without support in the body fails ]. If you disagree with my understanding of policy, please feel free to explain why you think I'm mistaken, and please try to do so without saying yet again that I'm a goddamned liar. Thanks.] (]) 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

			\|currentstatus=FGAN
	::: Colleagues: <nowiki>{{citation needed lead}}</nowiki> is one of the 55 inline "'''verifiability & sources'''" '''tags'''. For a helpful list with usage notes, see ], § Verifiability and sources, ]. --] (]) 05:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|topic=Politics and government
			}}
			{{Afd-merged-from\|Health of Donald Trump\|Health of Donald Trump\|13 June 2019}}
			{{Press \| collapsed=yes
			\|org='']'' \|date=November 16, 2013 \|author=Cuozzo, Steve \|title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages
			\|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/
			\|org2='']'' \|date2=July 22, 2015 \|author2=Popper, Ben \|title2=Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page
			\|url2=http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/22/9014525/someone-just-deleted-donald-trumps-entire-wikipedia-page
			\|org3='']'' \|date3=February 1, 2016 \|author3=Merrill, Jeremy \|title3=On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate
			\|url3=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html
			\|org4='']'' \|date4=May 28, 2016 \|author4=Germ, Erik \|title4=5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day
			\|url4=https://web.archive.org/web/20170210205851/http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-truly-bizarre-sections-otherwise-normal-websites_p2/
			\|org5='']'' \|date5=October 25, 2016 \|author5=Guo, Jeff \|title5=Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws
			\|url5=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/25/somethings-terribly-wrong-with-the-internet-and-wikipedia-might-be-able-to-fix-it/
			\|org6='']'' \|date6=October 27, 2016\|author6=Alcantara, Chris \|title6=The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages
			\|url6=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/presidential-wikipedias/
			\|org7='']'' \|date7=December 21, 2016 \|author7=Staff Writer \|title7=Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed
			\|url7=http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38394685
			\|org8='']'' \|date8=January 20, 2017 \|author8=Gartenberg, Chaim \|title8=Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet
			\|url8=http://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/1/20/14336626/wikipedia-editors-edit-war-president-obama-trump
			\|org9='']'' \|date9=June 5, 2017 \|author9=Wyrich, Andrew \|title9=Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages
			\|url9=https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/donald-trump-official-portrait-wikipedia-copyright/
			\|org10='']'' \|date10=22 November 2018 \|author10=Warren, Tom\|title10=Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis\|url10=https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/11/22/18108195/apple-siri-iphone-donald-trump-penis-wikipedia-fail-vandalism-editing
			\|org11='']'' \|date11=22 November 2018 \|author11=Blumenthal, Eli\|title11=Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump \|url11=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/11/22/siri-glitch-shows-male-genitalia-when-asking-questions-trump/2088884002/
			\|org12='']'' \|date12=23 November 2018 \|author12=Griffin, Andrew\|title12=Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit\|url12=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/donald-trump-siri-explicit-image-apple-wikipedia-edit-explained-a8648556.html
			\|org13='']'' \|date13=23 November 2018 \|author13=Gander, Kashmira\|title13=Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis\|url13=https://www.newsweek.com/someone-hacked-donald-trumps-wikipedia-page-replaced-photo-image-penis-1228571
			\|org14='']'' \|date14=26 November 2018 \|author14=Martin, Alan\|title14=The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again\|url14=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3066986/the-trump-penis-wikipedia-war-has-kicked-off-again
			\|org15='']'' \|date15=December 3, 2018 \|author15=Brandom, Russell\|title15=Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack\|url15=https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125359/wikipedia-trump-admin-account-security-hack
			\|org16='']'' \|date16=May 28, 2019 \|author16=Mak, Aaron\|title16=Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone\|url16=https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.htm
			\|org17='']'' \|date17=March 7, 2020 \|author17=Pasternack, Alex \|title17=How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation \|url17=https://www.fastcompany.com/90471667/how-wikipedia-volunteers-became-the-webs-best-weapon-against-misinformation
			\|org18='']'' \|date18=May 21, 2020 \|author18=Flood, Brian \|title18=Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics \|url18=https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics
			\|org19='']'' \|date19=November 19, 2020 \|author19=Evon, Dan \|title19=Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump’s Misplaced Pages Page? \|url19=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loser-com-trump-wikipedia-page/
			\|org20='']'' \|date20=October 23, 2023 \|author20=Williams, Zoe \|title20=Why is Elon Musk attacking Misplaced Pages? Because its very existence offends him \|url20=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/23/why-is-elon-musk-attacking-wikipedia-because-its-very-existence-offends-him
			\|org21='']'' \|date21=May 31, 2024 \|author21=Hays, Gabriel \|title21=CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Misplaced Pages page \|url21=https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-host-suggests-trump-conviction-mentioned-prominently-enough-former-presidents-wikipedia-page
			\|org22='']'' \|date22=June 4, 2024 \|author22=Harrison, Stephen \|title22=The Most Heated Debate on Trump’s Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Misplaced Pages? \|url22=https://slate.com/technology/2024/06/donald-trump-felony-wikipedia-debate.html
			\|org23='']'' \|date23=October 17, 2024 \|author23=Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv \|title23=Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research \|url23=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/17/opinion/use-wikipedia-reliable-source/
			}}
			{{All time pageviews\|233}}
			{{Annual report\|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}}
			{{Top 25 report\|Jun 14 2015\|Jun 28 2015\|Jul 19 2015\|until\|Sep 27 2015\|Dec 6 2015\|Dec 13 2015\|Jan 3 2016\|until\|Jan 17 2016\|until\|Jun 12 2016\|Jul 3 2016\|until\|Jul 31 2016\|Aug 21 2016\|until\|Dec 18 2016\|Jan 1 2017\|until\|Apr 2 2017\|Apr 23 2017\|May 14 2017\|until\|May 28 2017\|Jun 11 2017\|Jun 25 2017\|Oct 8 2017\|Oct 22 2017\|Nov 26 2017\|Jan 14 2018\|Jun 10 2018\|Sep 30 2018\|Oct 28 2018\|until\|Nov 25 2018\|Dec 9 2018\|Sep 22 2019\|Dec 15 2019\|Jan 5 2020\|Feb 23 2020\|Mar 1 2020\|Apr 12 2020\|May 31 2020\|until\|Jun 28 2020\|Aug 9 2020\|until\|Aug 23 2020\|Sep 27 2020\|until\|Dec 13 2020\|Jan 3 2021\|until\|Jan 31 2021\|Jul 10 2022\|Jun 11 2023\|May 26 2024\|Jun 23 2024\|Jul 14 2024\|Jul 21 2024\|Oct 20 2024\|until\|Nov 24 2024}}
			{{Annual readership\|scale=log}}
			<!-- end page history banner bundle --> }}
			{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Skip to bottom}}
			{{Banner holder \|collapsed=yes \|1=
			{{Section sizes}}
			}}

			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	===Observations===
			\|algo = old(7d)
	# "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." This sentiment is repeated throughout ]. There must be consensus that whatever is added to the lead, is important enough to justify its place there.
			\|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d
	# If content in the lead is not found in the body then the lead content must have acceptable inline cites.
			\|counter = 186
	# Standard facts in the lead do not have to be repeated in the body but most other things should appear with more details or at least the wording of such details should be actively discussed on the talk page with an eye to synchronizing the lead and body sooner than later.
			\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	# Different editors place different emphasis on different parts of guidelines. Doing so is '''not''' deliberate misrepresentation. It may be an incorrect representation or interpretation but the words chosen above are not the best.
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	--] <sup>]</sup> 18:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	::] is also pertinent. Among other things, it says: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." There are no footnotes in the lead of ], ], ], ], et cetera. I don't favor modifying the lead of this article to include footnotes either.] (]) 18:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
			\|minthreadsleft = 3
			}}

			__TOC__
	===POV lead (redux)===
	The above thread seems to have petered out without much substantive discussion. Does anyone have any ideas of specific ways the lead section can be improved? I've suggested the addition of a sentence each on birtherism and dishonesty. Any additional thoughts on those? --] (]) 20:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	: First let's put in some more details about Trump Organization's activities. Over the course of Trump's life, most of his time, thoughts, and money have been invested in his company (not in his campaigns). --] (]) 08:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I support that effort, but I don't think the addition of some content should hold up the addition of unrelated content. Unless there are objections I'll take a stab at a couple of sentences. --] (]) 16:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

			== Current consensus == <!-- Must be on this page, not the subpage, to support mobile users -->
	== Accusations of racism ==
			{{/Current consensus}}
	{{collapse top\|Hatted until an admin stops by and decides how to better handle this as an apparent BLP vio}}

	Seriously, there are an , but still this Misplaced Pages-articel ignores that. Why? Are so many Misplaced Pages-editors Trump-fans? --] (]) 14:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	::The first two hits in those search results are labeled commentary and opinion. If you can find sources that are not commentary and opinion, feel free to list them here. The lead already says he wants to stop illegal immigration, and also stop legal immigration from countries with a history of terrorism, so readers are free to infer from that that Trump is racist, fascist, et cetera.] (]) 16:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::This is getting tedious. I have added "allegedly" because the subhead is not a direct quote. It's also not true. Ask Dr Ben Carson. I would suggest '''closing this topic'''.] (]) 16:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::I agree. While Trump's comments may appear to be racism to some, numerous others, including Carson, Cain and a significant share of the U.S. population, his comments are anything but racism. It is POV to call him a racist in any way. --] (]) 18:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	Racism isn't an opinion, it is a crime. <s>Trump is a racist.</s> Do he need to become an US-american Hitler first to make him a wikipedia-proved racist? Mentioning people like Carson and Cain to prove that Trump isn't a racist, makes me worry about the level of argumentation on enWP. --] (]) 20:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::One can't exactly say he "IS" a racist. Nor can one really use Ben Carson as a reliable source. However, one can reference racially biased things he has said or done, of which there are a good number. ] (]) 21:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::Why can't we use Ben Carson as a reliable source? we should trust him, he is a ], also he stabbed someone before..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 21:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	:The ] article does not say that ''he'' was a racist. That's because of the ] guideline. Furthermore we do not have sources that meet ] policy and it also violates ] policy. However, the policy and guidelines are applied even-handedly. ] (]) 21:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Well, if the enWP really doesn't state that Hitler was a racist then you obviously missed the point what Hitler did and your "Contentious labels"-thing is just far from what's called reality. By the way, anti-semitism is nothing else but one form of racism. So when somebody plan to, talk about and then really kill millions of jews and other ethnic or religious groups (eg. Romani people, check ]) than he is a racist. By not stating this, enWP ignores reality. Being blind for history makes you repeating it. First as a tragedy, then as a farce. --] (]) 23:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I've added "allegedly" back to the subhead. It's not a direct quote, so we need to say allegedly, if we have to mention this topic at all. Please don't remove it. The same epithet could apply to Hillary because of . Again, I suggest closing this topic because Misplaced Pages is ].] (]) 21:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

			== Racially charged ==
	*'''Enough''' Several of the comments in this thread are violating BLP guidelines. I suggest nuking it altogether. I have striken one comment that is a blatent violation and changed the header. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 21:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 10:51, 10 November 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2046768684}}<!-- END PIN -->
			Hello all, I see Consensus #30, based particularly on ] says: "The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."" I can also see that this is the only mention of "racially charged" in the article. Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? ] (]) 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:{{tq\|Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body?}} Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―] ] 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::<s>What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? ] (]) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)</s> I understand. ] (]) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―] ] 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. ] (]) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{u\|Riposte97}} I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could ]? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.
			:::Given it's an ] claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". ] (]) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::Your reasoning seems consistent with ]. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―] ] 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::@], apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. ] (]) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Yep definitely. ] (]) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

			I have created a page ] as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in ] as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.
	I'm from Germany. Because of our history I know very well how racism and faschism starts. It doesn't start with somebody who openly admits that he is a racist, but with somebody who makes big promises, gives easy answers, starts scapegoating several ethnic, religious or racial groups and is then elected. The USA is running in a trap. Even your great talkshow comedians are running out of ideas what to say about the very obvious signs given by Trump. But sure, don't be bold and write what many reliable sources already stated -that this Mr. Trump is a racial and faschistic undertones which feeds a more and more immoral crowd. Neutrality doesn't mean that you not allowed to tell when somebody is a racist. In fact by not doing it you are no more neutral. --] (]) 22:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

			This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for ], we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. ] (]) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	:Morgen, ].
			:{{u\|SusanLesch}} Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in ]. ] (]) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per ], {{tq\| not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text}}, however this statement absolutely should be cited per ]. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -] (]) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. ] (]) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support removal'''. "Racially charged" is . When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in ]. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — ] (]) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			::it needs removing for sure. it's against ] on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ ] 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It's sourced in ]. A citation should be added to the lead per ]. – ] (]) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — ] (]) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, ] (]) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:This comment is going over my head. ] (]) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Tracking lead size ==
	:To clarify, the issue here is something like what lawyers call "admissibility" in a courtroom. Is the accusation of racism admissible under Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines?
			Word counts by paragraph and '''total'''.
	] (]) 00:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
			{{hidden
	:For the benefit of any admin who reviews this, I have discussed this issue before in Talk, now archived here
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— '''614''' = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121
			\| content =
			— '''657''' = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43

			— '''418''' = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127
	:To repeat my argument then:

			— '''406''' = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142
	:Kristoff is a ]. Op-Eds can be included here. According to ], "Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
			}}
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— '''418''' = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143
			\| content =
			— '''413''' = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

			— '''422''' = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166
	:There is an enormous volume of discussion in ] accusing Trump of being a racist. That volume gives it ]. Another contentious term is ]. The ] article quotes ] that call Hamas terrorists, with a ] discussion. I think that's the right way to do it, which follows WP guidelines. We should treat Trump and racism the same way. Here are the accusations of racism, and here are his defenses.

			— '''437''' = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166
	:There's another way we could do it: Ignore the value judgment of "racist" and stick to the facts. Give the actions that Trump and his father have done that imply racism. We started to do that. Unfortunately, some editors kept deleting those facts. For example, we had a long and (I think) unjustified debate over whether to include the fact that the DOJ charged they were discriminating "against blacks," which made the section meaningless.

			— '''465''' = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164
	:Do you want to keep out the opinions and just stick to the facts? Then include the '''fact'' that the DOJ sent pairs of testers, who were matched black and white couples identical except for their race, and the Trump organization rejected applications from the black couples and then accepted applications from the white couples. Trump and his lawyer Roy Cohen claimed that they were merely rejecting black people because they were on welfare, not because they were black, but then why did they reject the testers?
			}}
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— '''438''' = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164
			\| content =
			}}

			== Tracking article size ==
	:I think it's reasonable for Kristof, like many others, to say:
			] size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the ] limit.
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— 15,818 – 421,592 – 103
			\| content =
			— 15,883 – 427,790 – {{0}}46

			— 15,708 – 430,095 – {{0}}12
	::Here we have a man who for more than four decades has been repeatedly associated with racial discrimination or bigoted comments about minorities, some of them made on television for all to see. While any one episode may be ambiguous, what emerges over more than four decades is a narrative arc, a consistent pattern — and I don’t see what else to call it but racism.

			— 15,376 – 414,196 – {{0}}67
	:And I think that this kind of comment is a ], which can be cited in Misplaced Pages under WP guidelines, including ]. --] (]) 12:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
			}}
	::Thanks for clearing this subject. I added it in the article. --] (]) 15:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
			{{hidden
	:::], that didn't last long, did it? Under Misplaced Pages rules, the best way to get this in the article would be to get multiple ] who say the same thing. Search Google for "trump racist" (without the quotes) and pick out the most reliable sources possible, as defined by ]. I believe that magazines like Mother Jones and the Nation are ], but to avoid debates over whether they are ], try to pick sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, Atlantic, etc. That can include both columns and certain blogs ], and it can also include people whose opinions were quoted in news stories. You can probably find stories and columns calling Trump a racist because of his discrimination against blacks, Mexicans, and Muslims, and you could even use a Google search for "trump racist blacks" etc. (Note that some sources use "African-American" instead of "black.") If you can get 3 or 4 unimpeachably reliable sources saying that Trump is a racist, then you've established its relevance and significance under ]. We could insert the material, and if anybody deleted it, we would argue against the deletion in Talk, and we would have a good case documented in Talk that it belongs in the article, if/when admins come around to resolve disputes. --] (]) 11:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
	::::The Washington Examiner has made it easier for us. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/11-new-york-times-that-trump-was-a-racist/article/2596017 --] (]) 11:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
			\| header =
			— 15,479 – 415,176 – {{0}}64
			\| content =
			— 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

			— 15,294 – 405,370 – {{0}}80
	===Talk Page Guidelines===

	~~:Why was my response~~ ? We ~~don't delete other people's comments on talkpages.~~] ~~(]) 13:10~~, 14 ~~August~~ ~~2016~~ ~~(UTC)~~		— 14,863 – 402,971 – 190

			— 14,989 – 409,188 – 180
	::], please do not delete other editors' comments in talk pages. That violates the talk page guidelines, specifically ]. --] (]) 13:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
			}}

			{{hidden
	{{collapse bottom}}
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;

			\| header =
	{{collapse top\|More discussion of what we can and can't say about Donald Trump on this talk page}}
			— 14,681 – 404,773 – 187
	Leave this hatted. In the future, please consider formally informing new editors to this article/talk page making inflammatory statements of discretionary sanctions - <nowiki>{{subst:alert\|ap}} ~~~~</nowiki> It might get them to be more cautious and it makes it easier for admins to take action. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
			\| content =
	:I think that would be threatening and intimidating, exactly the opposite of ]. <s>Since you're not an admin yourself, leave it to the admins to decide.</s>
			}}
	:There are huge numbers of ]s calling Donald Trump a racist, and they back that claim up with objective, well-documented facts, such as the results of the DOJ's testers, and Trump's statements about Mexicans and Muslims. ] does not restrict us from citing those ]s in talk (or in the article).
	:I also think that your proposed policy would disproportionally intimidate critics of Trump. No one has sanctioned the editors who removed references to "black tenants" in the article. Your proposed sanctions would only apply to critics of Trump.
	:I am leaving this comment for the benefit of any admins who would consider your proposal.--] (]) 13:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	::], note that I said "making inflammatory statements" in my suggestion. As this is purely voluntary, individual editors can decide whether to notify or not. Editors new to this area need to be aware that '''everyone''' is held to stricter standards here. "Critics of Trump" should not be editing this article. "Supporters of Trump" should not be editing this article. Editors who want to produce encyclopedic content consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines should be editing this article. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::I don't know of any Misplaced Pages rules or guidelines that would discourage "Critics of Trump" or "Supporters of Trump" from editing this article, as long as they follow ] and ]. --] (])
	::::And ]. And ]. Which, in that case, they won't have to worry about discretionary sanctions. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::My personal opinion (which I actually formed yesterday reading all this) is that ] has been an issue in this discussion several times over. I don't see how it is contributing to building the encyclopedia or this article at all and would love to see it archived. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 19:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

	::: ]: Thank you for your well-meant to ]. Please rephrase your statement that ''"'Critics of Trump' should not be editing this article. 'Supporters of Trump' should not be editing this article."'' I understand what you're trying to get at here, but you communicated it very badly. --] (]) 21:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::I believe my meaning was clear. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::: ]: Clear to some, but not to ]. What you were getting at is that critics or supporters should not be editing this article ''in their capacity as critics or supporters''. --] (]) 22:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::The word "inflammatory" does not appear in ]. "Inflammatory" doesn't have a clear, unambiguous meaning that everyone can agree on. You can say that a statement is "inflammatory," and I can disagree. Can you give me a definition of "inflammatory," that new editors could use to determine whether a statement is inflammatory or not? Is it inflammatory to quote Trump as saying that Mexicans are rapists? --] (]) 22:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::My two cents: in this context the best definition of inflammatory is subversive. It subverts Misplaced Pages to quote things that were never said. Trump only said that ''some'' Mexicans are rapists.] (]) 22:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::: In particular, some unlawful Mexican immigrants who were "''pushed''" into the US by the Mexican government on suspicion of being violent criminals (narcotraficantes or whatever) and were apprehended by border guards. --] (]) 23:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::No, I'm not going to give you a definition editors can wikilawyer around. Use ] and ] as guidelines. Stick closely to what sources say, don't post assertions like "x is a psychopath" or "x is racist", and you should be fine. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::-], I realize that ] is an essay, not a guideline, but the following explains the problem with your answer.
	:::::::::'''Just pointing at a policy or guideline''' ]
	:::::::::While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.
	:::::::::...Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Misplaced Pages:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Misplaced Pages:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.
	::::::::For the record, simply citing "]. And ]." is just pointing to a policy or guideline without explaining how it applies to the discussion at hand.
	::::::::You say, "Stick closely to what sources say, don't post assertions like ... 'x is racist', and you should be fine." You're saying that we're not allowed to call someone a racist, even if ] call him a racist, ''and the individual calls himself a racist,'' like ].
	::::::::I and others are sticking closely to what the ] say. Many ] say of Trump, as Kristof does, "I don’t see what else to call it but racism." You don't want us to use that quote, and you're not giving us any reason for using that quote, other than just pointing to ], ] and ] without specifying how it applies.
	::::::::I believe the Kristof quote belongs in the article, and you haven't given us any reason based on WP policies and guidelines why it doesn't belong. --] (]) 00:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::There is a difference between using racism as an appeal to racists, and being a racist oneself. Do we know that George Wallace was personally a racist – or just that he used racist rhetoric to appeal to the flaws of others to forward his goals? I think it is acceptable under WP guidelines to carefully show RS which suggest that Trump is using racism as a tool. I don’t think WP should call him a racist, no matter the evidence, as it assumes we can look into the mind of another. Just avoid the noun. ] (]) 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::If you can't tell the difference between "This covers how Trump is seen as a racist by . I propose ." and "Trump is a racist! This needs to go in the article." then perhaps you should not be editing ]. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity..." --] <sup>]</sup> 00:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::So you're saying that if I wrote, "This high quality source, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, says of Trump, 'I don’t see what else to call it but racism,' and I propose we include it in the article," you would have no objection. --] (]) 02:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::::If the Kristof piece is an opinion piece rather than news, then it may be significant to include if his statement has been reported as news by any reliable source at all. Otherwise, I cannot see any more justification for including it in this article than a typical unreported statement by Linbaugh or Hannity or Ivanka that Donald hasn't got a racist bone in his body. And if the Kristof quote ''has'' been reported as news, we will have to explore whether contrary opinions have been reported as news so that they might be included proportionately to the corresponding coverage.] (]) 03:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::::], just so you're aware, what Kristof writes in the NYTimes carries substantially more weight than something Limbaugh says on his talk show. The reliability of sources matters on WP. -- ] (]) 06:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::::], that's correct. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	{{collapse bottom}}

			== Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump <span class="anchor" id="Request for consensus: Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump"></span> ==
	::::::::::::So does anybody object to inserting the text, "Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, says of Trump, 'I don’t see what else to call it but racism,'" in the article, in the discussion of the DOJ charges, which Kristof was examining? Do we have consensus? --] (]) 11:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
			{{archive top\|In this discussion, the community discusses what if anything to say about Mr Trump's age and health. Although the question at this RfC is clear and specific, some of the answers relate to slightly different points. Overall, this RfC reaches '''no consensus'''.{{pb}}'''Q:''' What's the scope of this discussion?{{br}}'''A:''' Whether to add a section to the article about the media speculation about Trump's age and health.{{pb}}'''Q:''' What's the effect of a "no consensus" close?{{br}}'''A:''' "No consensus" means the status quo ante continues. There isn't a section on the media speculation about Donald Trump's age and health, and no such section should be created in his top-level article.{{pb}}'''Q:''' How does this affect current consensus item #39, which reads "Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office"?{{br}}'''A:''' Per ], historic consensuses are superseded by current ones. However, this RfC related to a section, and the previous RfC related to a paragraph, and therefore the previous decision, i.e. that a paragraph about Trump's mental health or mental fitness may not be added, remains undisturbed.{{pb}}'''Q:''' Does that mean we can add something about media speculation about Trump's age and health that isn't a section or paragraph?{{br}}'''A:''' This RfC has not decided that.{{pb}}'''Q:''' Is it ok to say or imply that Donald Trump has any kind of age-related cognitive decline?{{br}}'''A:''' This is a biography of a living person, and such a claim would be "likely to be challenged" within the meaning of WP:V. Therefore no such claim can be made in Misplaced Pages's voice without an inline citation to a medically reliable source.{{pb}}I hope that this is clear and is sufficient to resolve the dispute. Queries, comments, and complaints about this close are welcome and should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—] <small>]/]</small> 16:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)\|NO CONSENSUS}}
	:::::::::::::], the Kristof column got massive coverage. You can do a Google search for "trump racist kristof" and pick out the ]s. I couldn't find any ] defending Trump, but it would be a good addition.
			{{small\|1=Uninvolved closure requested. ―] ] 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)}}
	:::::::::::::Incidentally, in doing that search, I found this article in the Washington Examiner, which does a lot of our work for us:
	:::::::::::::http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/11-new-york-times-that-trump-was-a-racist/article/2596017
	::::::::::::::11 New York Times that Trump was a 'racist'
	::::::::::::::By Eddie Scarry
	::::::::::::::Washington Examiner
	::::::::::::::7/10/16
	:::::::::::::It seems clear that many ]s have called Trump a "racist" specifically. For Misplaced Pages, we don't look for truth, just reliable sources. It would be nice to have other sources besides the NYT, but this should be enough to justify including it in the article.
	:::::::::::::(BTW, you can search individual newspapers with a Google search such as "site:washingtonpost.com trump racist" You can even find defenses of Trump, like "Donald Trump: ‘I am the least racist person’").--] (]) 11:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: ], I oppose adding the column to the ] BLP per ] policy as clarified by the ] essay (column not expected to appear relevant in 2026). I would support adding the column to the ] BLP but only if you find a high-quality high-circulation mainstream source article that is primarily about the column. If the article isn't primarily about this particular column, you can't cite it to support including this column. --] (]) 17:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}}{{U\|Dervorguilla}}, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. We don't make controversial, POV proclamations about anybody in BLPs no matter how many alleged reliable sources state those controversial, POV proclamations are true. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 18:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:: I ought to clarify the ] policy as I understand it, ]. The content in an article is supposed to represent fairly and proportionately all significant views ] on the subject. Sometimes the reputable sources contradict each other, and if the two opposing points of view have more-or-less equal prominence in the "body of reliable sources on the subject" (]), we're actually supposed to describe ''both'' points of view. (See ].) In which case,
	:::: 1 ''"upspin" POV edit'' + 1 ''"downspin" POV edit'' ~ ''NPOV''.
	:: At least, that's how I've been interpreting the policy. --] (]) 01:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

	], in ~~your~~ ~~reply~~ to me ~~above,~~ ~~you~~ ~~wrote,~~ ~~"if~~ the ~~enWP really doesn~~'t ~~state~~ ~~that~~ ~~Hitler~~ ~~was~~ a ~~racist~~ ~~then~~ ~~you~~ ~~obviously~~ ~~missed~~ ~~the~~ ~~point~~ ~~what~~ ~~Hitler~~ ~~did~~ ~~and~~ ~~your~~ ~~"Contentious~~ ~~labels"-thing~~ is ~~just~~ ~~far~~ ~~from what~~'s ~~called~~ ~~reality."~~ ~~The~~ ~~problem~~ is ~~that~~ we ~~must~~ ~~follow~~ ~~Misplaced Pages~~ guidelines in ~~writing~~ ~~articles~~ ~~and~~ if ~~you~~ do not ~~like~~ ~~the~~ ~~guidelines,~~ ~~you~~ ~~should~~ ~~get~~ ~~them~~ ~~changed~~ ~~before~~ ~~posting~~ ~~your~~ ~~edit~~ ~~recommendations~~ ~~here~~. ] (]) 20:12, 15 ~~August~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		OK. Here's my proposal: that a section be added that reports the ''public discussion of concerns'' about his health, which are now a major part of public discourse. It should obviously not ''itself'' speculate on Trump's mental fitness, only report on the comments of ] according to the ] guidelines. This would not violate ], because it would not express an opinion on his mental state, only report on the opinions of others. Opinions, please? — ] (]) 11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			:A consensus/new consensus can be established without an RfC. You've already started the discussion on this page. Opening an RfC at this point would be improper, IMO. ]] 11:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	::''Let me put in easy words'': If Misplaced Pages guidelines prohibit that the fact that Adolf Hitler was a rascist is mentioned in the enzyclopedic article than Misplaced Pages has a big problem with telling the facts about reality. This outraging sticking to questionable "Contentious labels"-rules just proves again the limitation Misplaced Pages has when it comes to display reality especially when it comes to political articles.
			:If you insist on going that route, this is the procedure: ]. ]] 11:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	::Same for the ongoing senseless meta-discussion around the clearly in reliable sources documented information about the racist character of Donald Trump. It is proven by several experts (in fields like psychology, political science and sociology) that the behaviour in several occasions and several statements of Donald Trump over the years are clearly of a rascist character. Behaviour and statements - that's how a person expresses himself, defines himself. Racist behaviour, rascist statements = rascist character. Everybody who ignores to acknowledge this, isn't neutral anymore, because then he helps Trump to cover up a clearly proven character element. So, to sum it up: A Misplaced Pages-article not mentioning the widely analysed and proven by reliable source rascist character of Donald Trump is a non-neutral Pro-Trump article. --] (]) 20:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::], I am not arguing whether Misplaced Pages guidelines or right or wrong. The place to argue that is on the guideline pages. If you do not like the rules, get them changed. In the meantime, respect editors who follow guidelines. ] (]) 20:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Misplaced Pages policies are very clear that well-sourced, relevant material—even if negative—is appropriate for inclusion in BLPs (see ]). It's a fact that numerous reliable sources have commented on the apparently racist nature of Trump's rhetoric. There is a brief list of some such sources ], in the Trump campaign article. (There are many other such reliable sources; this list is not exhaustive but does demonstrate that the concern over racism is well-documented in such sources). Whether such concerns belong in this article, or only in the Presidential campaign article, is up to other editors. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I don't see experienced editors (including at least one admin who's stopped by here more than once) having difficulty regarding BLP policy. But back to what's appropriate and what isn't: putting anything about Trump being racist in the article in Wiki-voice is inappropriate and against BLP policy. Adding something that quotes others saying Trump is racist isn't. See the difference? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 00:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::I think that {{u\|Dervorguilla}} and {{u\|MastCell}}'s views are more in line with what ] and ] actually say. Experience shouldn't really matter, but among the three of us we have over 60,000 edits. That said, ], and this is one of those exceptional claims; and, are there no reliable sources out there that say that Trump ''isn't'' racist? --] (]) 16:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::For that matter, can we please put together a list of reliable sources that say that Trump is racist, or say that he isn't? I see several mentions of the fact that such sources exist, but I don't think anyone has listed them out. And please only include reliable fact-checked sources, not individuals' personal opinions. --] (]) 16:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Good idea, but an exception to the "reliable sources only" rule should be that we allow at least one comment from Trump himself, or his family of defenders, denying it. The "least racist person in the world" quote would be good for that, but probably not the whole detailed defense describing his black friends and his Jewish daughter and so on. And IMO "reliable sources" could include the widely reported comment from Ryan (but not from Democrats or their supporters, or from anti-Trump Republicans). BTW I haven't contributed to this thread much, but my opinion is that Trump is NOT personally racist, and certainly not anti-Semitic; he just talks that way on the campaign trail. So anything that we say here should be along the lines that reliable sources say he makes racist comments or racist appeals - not that he is a racist. In other words, "what Winkelvi said." --] (]) 17:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::I agree that if the reliable sources say Trump is racist (or makes racist comments or appeals, or whatever the sources say), then Trump's position on that is fine. I would object to Paul Ryan's comment being included to the exclusion of the multitude of other equally notable people who've weighed in on the subject. But that's a secondary issue to what the reliable sources say. --] (]) 20:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::We should never say outright, in Misplaced Pages's voice, that Trump is a racist or that what he says is racist. Using reliable sources, we should say something along the lines of "Some commentators have stated that Trump uses racist appeals" (something similar to that). What some people consider blatant racism, others may see as not racist at all, I have observed, so we should be careful with this topic. --] (]) 21:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Rascism isn't an opinion, it is a crime. Therefore not calling a rascist (recognized as one by several experts) "a racist" isn't neutral, but it is supporting the racist by not calling him what he is. If you don't call a rascist a rascist because of politeness or similiar reasons, the rascist will be encourage to go further and further and further. Of course nearly every rascist will deny to be a rascist – until he has the power to translate his rascist remarks into action (e.g. when elected president of the US). --] (]) 21:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::Racism is NOT a crime. Racism is a thought, a feeling of hating other races - and we do not have thought police in this country. Carrying out criminal actions (ranging from discrimination to murder) motivated by racism IS a crime. If a person hates other races, but does not take any action based on those feelings, they may be despicable but they are not criminals. --] (]) 22:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::I will not comment further on such aquestionable statement. --] (]) 01:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::] applies here. We are NOT going to call someone a racist (especially someone as controversial as Trump) in Misplaced Pages's voice. My preceding comment still stands. --] (]) 23:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::Obviously you mixing up being neutral and ignoring reality. Ignoring the proven (by behaviour and statements) and often documented by reliable sources and experts fact that Donald Trump is racist ISN'T neutral, it is pro-Trump. Ignoring what a lot of reasonable observers state again and again, ISN'T neutral, it is ignorant. A murderer is a murderer, find guilty by evidence, no matter how often he negates it. A racist is a racist, convicted by evidence (his language, his political aims, his behaviour towards certain ethnic groups and how he wants deny them basic human rights), no matter how often he negates it. As also mentioned by many experts in the field Donald Trump has many psychological defects. So maybe his racism can be explained by his paranoia, his narcissism and his histrionic personality disorder . But for naming it in the article it doesn't matter if Trumps racism is caused by illness or by free will, because the affect of having him talking to people in that way causes the same damages either way. So it is NOT neutral keeping the mentioning of Trump's racism out of the article, it is ignoring the reality and therefore is clear not NPOV, but just plain Pro-Trump. --] (]) 01:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::{{u\|Jensbest\|Jens}}, if you truly wish to have material about Trump's racism added to the article then the way to help in that effort is to find some ] and put them in the subsection below. And please keep the aggressive rhetoric to a minimum. --] (]) 04:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::<small>It is very easy to find massive material about the racism of Donald Trump (e.g. the list of NYTimes articles you mentioned above). Logical argumentation based on respecting basic human rights is "agressive" in the world of enWP? Interesting. I'm not sure that it is my job to correct this article. If I'm the only one who thinks that massive data in reliable sources (which I read over the last months) should be used to show the clear racism of Donald Trump than maybe the english Misplaced Pages isn't ready to write this facts about Trump. Why should I risk to be blocked, because a lot of Trümp supporters here trying to argue with me about every detail just to keep the basic information out of the article? --] (]) 09:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC) </small>
	:::::: ] says that racism itself can (in one sense) be "''a crime''". His interpretation is supported by ''Black's Law Dictionary''.
	:::::::: "'''racism. 1.''' The belief that some races are inherently superior to other races. '''2.''' Unfair treatment of people, often including violence against them, because they belong to a different race from one’s own. — '''racist,''' ''adj.'' & ''n.''"
	:::::: As Lunsford points out in "Fallacies of Argument: Equivocation",
	:::::::: "Many public figures are fond of parsing their words carefully so that no certain meaning emerges... Critics of the Bush administration said its many attempts to deny that ‘torture’ was being used ... amounted to a long series of equivocations."
	:::::: So we can't just say that the Trump campaign denied Trump is a racist, or that ''A'', ''B'', ''C'', and ''D'' claimed he is.
	:::::: But we could say that ''A'' and ''B'' claimed he's a racist in sense 1; ''C'' claimed he's a racist in sense 2; ''D'' claimed he, Clinton, and Johnson are all racist in some sense in that they're all part of Euro-American society; and Trump himself denied he's a racist because (1) he questions the scientific validity of "''race''" as a concept or (2) unlike Clinton and Johnson, he groups people by wealth, not physiognomy.
	:::::: See, for example, ]: "He and his father ] when the ] alleged that they were discriminating against blacks ... rather than merely screening out people based on low income as the Trumps stated."
	:::::: <small>Or see O'Harrow quote: "Civil rights groups ... viewed the Trump company as just one example of a nationwide problem of housing discrimination. But ... 'they were big names.'"
	</small>
	:::::: Question: How many sources say that Trump is '''more racist''' or '''less racist''' than Clinton or Johnson? --] (]) 07:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

			* Just to start off: '''support''' as proposer, per comments above. — ] (]) 11:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	It seems there's a lot of hot air here by those who say they want something included about racism. If you want something added, please provide ] below. --] (]) 16:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
			*:Anome, I suggest you notify the talk page of the article from which your proposed content originated. That page is 6 years old, so the editors there are likely knowledgeable.]] 20:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	:It's not "hot air", it is a discussion why widely and easy to find reliable sources about the fact that Trump is a racist are not already included in this article. It is certainly NOT because reliable sources are difficult to find. In fact they are very easy to find. This article helps to ignore the reality about Trump and many editors taking care that it stays that way. Why should a rational editor, not from the USA and observing this weird development, risk to be blocked by getting involved with well-trained editors who taking care that all real info about Trump are keep out of the article? If the US-american editor-community isn't able to prevent such propaganda-articles in the first place, than that is something what should worry many people inside and outside Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 02:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	:~~:Are~~ ~~you here~~ to ~~improve~~ ~~the~~ ~~article?~~ --] (]) 04:30, 19 ~~August~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		*:Best 'not' to hand out such a notification at another talkpage, Anome. Less that be construed as ] for support. ] (]) 21:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''', it is media speculation, not a clinical diagnosis, and this is a BLP. ] (]) 11:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::Sure, but not sentence by sentence. The whole article ignores well-known problems about Trump as they can easily be found in reliable sources (e.g. racist remarks & behaviour, narcissistic nature of Trumps behaviour and many more). So only adding one little sentence and even discussing this one little change for weeks won't make this a good article which helps to show some real aspects about the person Donald Trump. This article (at least the political parts of it) needs a heavy re-write. I'm here to discuss this greater problem of this article, to improve it in a more advanced way by discuss the problems in the structure to find a common ground with the more reasonable editors at hand to change the arcticle. But what I experience is that even a discussion about improving this article when it comes to reliable sources giving informations about the racist and narcissistic nature of Donald Trumps political life is tried to be suppressed by threatening me with "administrative action" (interesting way to silence people who put the finger on the bias problem). That draws a bad picture of how Misplaced Pages-article getting politically biased not by single editors, but by the systemic unrealistic understanding of "wannabe neutral". For political and journalistic observers this paints an interesting picture and questions are rising how aware Misplaced Pages editors are about the impact a biased article has on the public when it is read on an average of 60.000times/day and peaking often up to 500.000times/day. So, ya, I'm here to improve the article and therefore I'm still hoping for a reasonable debate, but I have more and more the impression that this isn't about to happen. Anyway, this whole thread (and some of the above) until now already gives a lot of material for outside observers to see how the rules of the Misplaced Pages can be used to keep an article biased. A very disturbing observation I must say. --] (]) 14:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
			*'''yes''' it is time, esp after the 39 minute dance this week the topic has received quite a bit of coverage. whether it is a 'diagnosis' or not is not an issue, a encyclopedia is not drawing a medically-based conclusion it is just reflecting the preponderance of the sources. ] (]) 13:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	::Jens, the problem for me at least is one of ]. It may be obvious to millions of people that Trump is this or that but unless it's expressly stated by reliable sources in their own voice, we can't say that. And I'm not aware of any such reliable sources. They could be out there, but I haven't found them. If you want to build consensus for real, systemic change, you have to do a little more than simply say, "it's obvious...it's obvious...it's obvious." --] (]) 16:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
			*:No. You are attempting to create a false narrative. ] (]) 05:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

			*''' No''' or at best, very limited yes. I know we don't cite other wiki pages. But just for comparison, the ] main page only gives it about a vague sentence or two, and that's for a figure who's cognitive decline has been much more prominent and widely discussed by RS. Also, that section is titled much more neutrally simply as "Age and health." So overall, this is a "no" unless ''significantly'' scaled back. ] (]) 13:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	=== List of reliable sources saying that Trump is or isn't racist ===
			*'''No''' It looks like they are not sincere age and health concerns but political attacks with no consensus of medical professionals. In the last stages of an election campaign, I think it's just part of an expected full court press. ] (]) 14:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- Please use bullet points. -->
			*:That's a straw man. The topic is concerns, which have been found NOTABLE on the abundantly sourced wiki page from which the recent content and deletion originated. If it were a medical diagnosis, the lead of this page would simply state "Donald Trump is the demented former POTUS and the demented candidate for 2024." But it isn't a diagnosis and nobody's suggested it is. There should not be a formal poll of any sort here. It's already under discussion and {{ping\|GoodDay}} has provided no policy or content-based rationale not to include this summary of a relevant article, similar to many others on this page. Lacking any such rationale, the removal appears meddlesome and destructive.]] 15:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::Are you suggesting editors who oppose the addition, are disruptive? ] (]) 15:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::SPECIFICO was topic banned from Donald Trump a couple of months ago and their above comment was given as the last example of why. ] (]) 14:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''' - as he hasn't been diagnosed with having any such medical issues. ] (]) 14:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''' - We are not going to use non-MEDRS soucres to speculated on someone's mental or physical health. We wouldn't do it with Joe or anyone else. It's also laughable un-encyclopedic. Also it should probably be an RFC to overturn two RFCs and a bunch of previous discussions that all found the same thing. ] (]) 14:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe . ] (]) 15:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::Ugh, well we shouldn't. ] (]) 16:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I don't see a way to "unring" that bell. ] (]) 20:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:Not to point fingers or drag this out even further (see below), but <s>this</s> (correction, see comment by Just10A above) seems to be where comparisons to the Biden article actually started. Cheers. ] (]) 10:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Yes''' See ]. "After the debate raised questions about his health and age, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets". I understand BLP's require extra care, but "concern" doesn't seem to be ] enough, as long as it's attributed in a verifiable context outside of VOICE. If the same rules that apply to Biden also apply to Trump, "Refuses to release medical records" with "attributed concerns" is where the bar currently sits. See "More than 230 doctors and health care providers, most of whom are backing Vice President Kamala Harris, call on Trump to release medical records" , , . Also see ] Cheers. ] (]) 15:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:And Biden did step down, is there any indication of similar pressure on Trump from within the GOP? ] (]) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::It's not a qualifier as far as I know. Was the "raised questions about Biden's health" only allowed to be added AFTER he stepped down? Cheers. ] (]) 15:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Well I recall making the same arguments there as here, and it all changed when it actually had an impact on the election. ] (]) 15:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Let's look at the tape. {{tq\|Looks like concerns about Biden's health were added on the 4th of July}} "After the debate raised questions about his health, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets" and {{tq\|Biden didn't resign until July 21st.}} Did I miss something? ] (]) 15:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::NO, but I did, as I had opposed that in the past, and did not see the addition. ] (]) 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::I can see wanting to err on the side of caution, but the cat is out of the bag and fairness is the name of the game, and other such idioms... ] (]) 16:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::So we could say then "After a series of rallies raised questions about his health, Trump faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Republicana and the editorial boards of several major news outlets", would this be supported by RS? ] (]) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::AFAIK There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar. Only that it must be based on what the sources say. ] (]) 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::1.) Do not substantively edit your comments after editors have already replied to them without indicating it. That is against ].
			*:::::::::2.) I don't know how you can argue {{tq\|"There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar"}} when ''just'' above that you argued {{tq\| "Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe"}} and {{tq\|"fairness is the name of the game."}}
			*:::::::::I agree that policy doesn't mandate they match, but you gotta pick a side. You can't argue "Policy says they don't need to be similar" and then simultaneously say "They gotta similar or else it's unfair." ] (]) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::@] If I acted improperly I apologize, as it wasn't my intent to mislead anyone, hence the clarification. I wasn't aware adding afaik is considered a substantive change.
			*::::::::::I believe my yes vote implies that I have picked a side. TMK I'm allowed to make observations and express views on the appearance of possible inconsistencies in the application of policy in good faith. Cheers. ] (]) 22:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::No problem. I was referring to you adding the ABC source in your earlier comment though just to be clear. I agree that adding AFAIK is more minor. ] (]) 22:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::Oh, then I was way off on what I thought you were referring to. I was about to start adding TMK and AFAIK to all of my sentences. I meant to add the ABC source in my original edit, but I goofed. Truly sorry if that screwed something up, I've had similar experiences so I empathize. ] (]) 22:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::@] I would briefly add that, TMK the application of policy and the substance of the context being proposed do not represent two conflicting interpretations of the same policies AFAIK. ] (]) 22:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::True, but it also means they are not the same situation, which was my point, that they are not analogous. ] (]) 10:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
			*{{ec}} I'd like to see someone confirm what sort of {{em\|secondary}} coverage is here, but ] is irrelevant here because biographical information is {{strong\|not biomedical information}}: we should almost never include things like how a disease works or how it is diagnosed (except insofar to mention the subject {{em\|isn't}}, when that's the case) on a biographical article in the first place. That is not to say we should not ask for the absolute best quality sources, but MEDRS is an inappropriate guideline here. Also, discussion on this topic will also need to consider how and where primary sources are used on the subarticle. Due weight concerns don't go away simply because the content happens to be on another article, and not mentioning something we have an entire subarticle on even once in the main article is close to essentially {{em\|forcing}} the subarticle to be a POV fork, an outcome I'd expect neither those supporting nor opposing inclusion should want. ] (] • ]) 22:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			::I also don't see how ] (identifying reliable third-party published secondary sources accurately reflecting current knowledge on ] (information relating to or could reasonably be perceived as relating to human health)) applies. If a majority of reliable sources describes the candidate's speech as increasingly incoherent and his , it's not a medical diagnosis. Consensus 39: {{tq\|This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office.}} ]] 13:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

			:No. This is still a BLP. ] (]) 22:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	=== Continued discussion on racism ===
			:'''Comment''' For anyone interested in additional details about "]" being added to the LEAD of ]'s BLP, they appeared about nine days before he bowed out of the 2024 presidential race. It made it onto the LEAD on July 12, . On the 18th a CFN tag was added , then removed , then re-added and removed again on the 19th , back on the 20th , removed same day , then again re-added by {{U\|FMSky}} on the 20th , then removed again same day , re-added same day , and finally within the next 8-24 hours he dropped out . Cheers. ] (]) 02:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
			::Let me clarify 2 more things then I'm outta here. First, I goofed again when I pinged FMSky, total brain fart that might be perceived as intentional CANVAS or sabotage, I'm just tired from editing all day and got distracted putting diffs together. It's no excuse it's just being honest, you can check my contribs. I doubt they would agree with my vote anyway. Second, I'm not saying this is a good reason to do the same thing here, I just think it's relevant somehow. Sorry if I screwed up, it wont happen again (here at least). Cheers. ] (]) 02:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Include'''. In the last 5-14 days since Harris released her "excellent health" report, there has been renewed coverage in RS about Trump's refusal to release his medical records<ref>{{Cite news \|date=2024-10-12 \|title=Harris releases a health report, shifting the focus to Trump's age and health concerns \|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/harris-releases-a-health-report-shifting-the-focus-to-trumps-age-and-health-concerns/articleshow/114175162.cms?from=mdr \|access-date=2024-10-17 \|work=The Economic Times \|issn=0013-0389}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=News \|first=A. B. C. \|title=Trump would be the oldest person to become president. He's not sharing health details \|url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-oldest-person-become-president-sharing-health-details-114859051 \|access-date=2024-10-17 \|website=ABC News \|language=en}}</ref> and the recent town hall that was even beyond the usual performance standard. Even after Biden it was mentioned ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
			{{sources-talk}}
			:*'''Yes''', there is polling and Trump hasn't disclosed his medical records.
			:] (]) 02:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Yes'''. People say that it should not be included because there is no MEDRS-level source that lists Trump's health. However, this did not stop concerns about Biden's health being added to the Joe Biden page, nor did it stop the creation of the ] Misplaced Pages page. There is also an ] page. Misplaced Pages is governed by the consensus of reliable sources, and multiple reliable sources have brought up this topic to the extent that an entire individual page on the wiki exists to cover it, thus the content is ]. To not ''at least mention it'' on this page would be a violation of ] and ] through the introduction of editorial bias by having Misplaced Pages editors decide that the issue is "not important" enough to mention on this page, despite multiple RS clearly making the case that this issue is worth mentioning. ] (]) 03:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			* Regarding the rally in Oaks, PA that's been mentioned in this section and in various news media sources, here's the full video of it from C-SPAN . I think it's been mischaracterized as age and health concerns for Trump. ] (]) 07:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Yes'''! Its absurd having a long article ] with 120 references but trying to hide that in the main article. This is really a hot topic in the media (US and abroad) so deleting it here is really ridiculous. Especially with the ] entry featuring ]. ] (]) 19:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
			::''Comment:'' Amen to this. Biden has never been diagnosed with dementia, so it would be wildly improper to suggest that he does, per ], but we ''can and should'' report the widely ]-reported ''public political controversy'' regarding the possibility of dementia, per ], as it is politically significant. Trump should not be treated as a special case who is somehow privileged over others. — ] (]) 06:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Yes''' for basically the reason Andol gave. There's a long article on these concerns, so we clearly have ample sourcing for them, so it's weird we're not mentioning them much here. ] (]) 01:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. The decline may not have been as obvious as Biden's because it started from a much lower baseline, but it was noticeable and noticed. Just this week, there was the 39-minute musical interlude at the Oaks, PA, town hall; the non-responsive rambling during the Bloomberg interview; on who his favorite president was when he was little. Trump said "Reagan", then rambled on about Lincoln, the Civil War, Ukraine, Russia, October 7, buying oil from Iran, etc.; and at yesterday's rally in Latrobe, PA, where he and regaled the crowd with tales of Arnold Palmer being "strong and tough" and "unbelievable" in the shower, adding to the "impression of as increasingly unfiltered and undisciplined". Quoting the AP headline: . "an unusually energetic rally for the former president, who has looked and sounded tired of late while doing multiple events and interviews a day across multiple swing states".<ref>{{cite news\|last=Gold\|first=Michael\| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/19/us/politics/trump-vulgarity-pennsylvania-rally.html\|title=At a Pennsylvania Rally, Trump Descends to New Levels of Vulgarity\|work=]\|date=October 19, 2024\|access-date=October 20, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news\|last=Bender\|first=Michael C.\| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/20/us/politics/trump-meandering-remarks.html\|title=Four of Trump’s Most Meandering Remarks This Week\|work=]\|date=October 20, 2024\|access-date=October 20, 2024}}</ref>]] 15:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			{{sources-talk}}
			*'''Oaks Town Hall''' — (Good-faith ] of distracting side issue was reverted. The following posts were in response to . ]] 16:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC) )
			::It wasn't a rally. It was a "]" staged by the Trump campaign, with Republican operatives posing as "constituents" and reading off cue cards. One of them, "Angelina who had voted Democrat all my life and was from a Democrat union household" had to correct herself because she forgot to say "union household"; she's Angelina Banks who was the Republican nominee for Township Commissioner and State Representative in Pennsylvania's 154th and lost with 19.3% to Nelson's 80.7%.<ref>{{cite news \|last=Wolff \|first=J.D. \|url=https://www.meidasplus.com/p/busted-former-republican-candidates \|title=Busted! Former Republican Candidates Posed As Constituents at Trump's PA Town Hall \|work=] \|date=October 17, 2024 \|access-date=October 17, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news \|url=https://southbendtribune.com/elections/results/race/2022-11-08-state_house-PA-39234/ \|title=2022 Pennsylvania State House - District 154 Election Results \|work=]\|date=January 26, 2023 \|access-date=October 17, 2024}}</ref> Mischaracterized? The campaign had prepared 10 Q&As but the Q&A turned into a with Trump giving a minion a playlist and then standing on stage not even dancing. Just standing, occasionally swaying, jerking his arms, finger-pointing at the audience, and making faces/smiling(?). <small>And, in keeping with the musical theme, two days later Fox unearthed the set of ] for an all-women town hall with an asking curated puff questions.</small> ]] 11:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
			{{sources-talk}}
			::{{tq\|I think it's been mischaracterized...}} You personal analysis of reliable sources is of no concern to this page. If the sources cover this as an example of the subject's mental decline, then so shall we. Not necessarily in the proverbial "WikiVoice" but as "sources say." For now. ] (]) 12:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

			*'''No''' There are no reliable secondary sources reporting that Trump has age-related cognitive decline, just speculation from his opponents. One editor mentioned that we covered this for Biden, but it was in the article about his recent presidential campaign. That's where this informtion belongs. It isn't possible to list every accusation made by his opponents in this article, so there is a high bar for inclusion. ] (]) 11:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
	== Website ==
			:: Speculation from his opponents? You mean denial of his supporters? I think it is obvious to ''everyone except is supporters'' that he has massive issues. This is not a political campaign. It is a topic reported in international media all over the world, even making headlines. And everyone can see it. The only news outlets that don't report on this are the conservative media in US! Think about that. Greetings from Germany, where Trumps decline seems to be better covered than in (the conservative) parts of the US media. ] (]) 19:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
			::Is there something askew with these sources? They seem to be speculating at the very least.
			::
			::
			::
			::
			::
			::
			::
			::Cheers. ] (]) 02:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::Reliable sources lose their reliability when they express politically motivated opinion and manipulation during a heated election campaign. Buried in one of those sources is a glimmer of rational journalistic integrity, "...the experts in memory, psychology, and linguistics who spoke to STAT noted that they couldn’t give a diagnosis without conducting an examination...". Thanks. ] (]) 11:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::Not according to policy, bias it not a justification for rejecting a source, only lack of factual accuracy. ] (]) 11:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::: Don't fall for the bias claim. It doesn't make you biased if you report on those glaring issues. They are obvious. Rather the opposite is true. It takes willful denial, i.e. bias, to not see it. The whole point here is that Trump as a whole is such an abnormal person that he has shifted the goalposts to such a distance that there is no standard to measure him and thus he can get away with anything. And that is a problem for Misplaced Pages, because Biden is compared to normal people (making him look old), while Trump is compared to himself. Add the near-total polarization in the US, which has his supporters deny everything, even the possibility that there could be anything. Please step back and look up, how the Rest of the world looks at Trump and this election. It's not how the US see it. Trust me. 80 % of the population is in utter disbelieve how Trump with all of his glaring issues even got there, lest how someone who is right in his mind can even think a second of voting for him. And we do really debate ''if'' he has issues? Claiming he hasn't is biased, not the other way round. This is a clear situation where the truth is ''not'' halfway in the middle. Look at . Just imagine Joe Biden or Kamala Harris being on stage bragging about the size of some dudes dick. The outcry would be thermonuclear and it would be broadly covered in his or her article in literally five seconds. Here? Thats Trump, normal day in the office, so what. Irrelevant, he made a thousand similar remarks. And that creates a systematic bias pro Trump, because there is no standard he doesn't fall short of, and therefore nothing is noteworthy, no matter how egregious. ] (]) 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''' - If it was to be included, it would have to be introduced as mere speculation because of MEDRS, but I do not believe there has been any particulary significant RS reporting of speculation about cognitive decline as there was about Biden nor any substantive reason (like a drop out over it) to include it. Trump's speculated cognitive decline has only been popping in the news for the past couple months because he's now the old guy on the ticket, and Dems naturally want to capitalize on that. Not ] at this time. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
			**{{ping\|R. G. Checkers}} And yet we have all the cites from mainstream media ] cited above. Mysteriously, this sort of reporting is regarded as ] when it comes to Biden, yet not for Trump. As Elon Musk would say, "Interesting." Is there any point at which you might regarded the public debate about Trump's mental competence noteworthy enough to mention here, or are you just waiting for the election to be over? — ] (]) 17:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			**:Yes, and it won’t be because he danced at a rally. It would be if there was sustained coverage over months long periods with concerns of cognitive decline or if he literally had drop out of the race because of it. But do I think that 3 weeks before an election with politics flaring and a sudden emphasis on his alleged mental decline is a good reason for inclusion? I answer no. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			**::In other words, ] but not before the election? I didn't know WP had to adhere to DOJ guidelines. ]] 20:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			**:::Is there some policy I'm not aware of that gives a waiting period, especially if your name isn't Joe Biden? ] (]) 20:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			**::::That's not exactly what Mr. Checkers said. I agree that we should ensure the content is ] by waiting to see if it's a blip, or something carried through by the sources for more than a few days. Space4Time3Continuum2x, you are usually a stalwart adherent of both established consensus and conservative application of policy - what gives? ] (]) 21:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			**:::::. <small>(I'm still trying to unimagine the unbelievable Arnold Palmer in the shower — a few extra nipples, a rudimentary third leg, a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back? Although that one is on Roger Stone, I believe, another Trump friend.)</small> This isn't new. : "Trump's self-absorption, impulsiveness, lack of empathy, obsessive focus on slights, tenuous grasp of facts and penchant for sometimes far-fetched conspiracy theories have generated endless op-ed columns, magazine articles, books, professional panel discussions and cable television speculation." Now we have a flood of reporting on what was obvious for months for everyone who watched Trump rallys on C-SPAN. ]] 15:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
			**::::::Your personal analysis or perceived opinion on what's "obvious" about political candidates is irrelevant to the discussion at issue. You're getting seriously close to ]. Quit rambling and stick to neutral discussion about the topic at hand to improve the encyclopedia. ] (]) 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
			**:::::::]. ]] 17:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
			**::::::::Asking you to stop violating policy is not a personal attack. ] (]) 18:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
			**:::::This has been reported on maybe as far back as 2017.
			**:::::
			**:::::
			**:::::
			**:::::
			**:::::
			**:::::
			**:::::No one seems to be suggesting this goes into the lead sentence, and as far as policy goes, eerily similar material to ] made it into the the Biden article as far back as July 4th, and it's STILL there. ] (]) 19:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
			**::::::As is frequently pointed out to new users of this page, the fact that some other page on Misplaced Pages has a different consensus has no bearing on this one. That is usually understood when we are resisting putting something positive in, but seems all to quickly jettisoned when convenient. Regarding the Oaks Town Hall which precipitated this thread, neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources that Trump had some kind of mental episode. See for example: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-town-hall-derailed-after-medical-emergencies-crowd/story?id=114796716. I remain unconvinced that the content should be added. ] (]) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
			**:::::::{{tq\|"neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources"}}
			**:::::::These threads get so long it's hard to keep track. Please link or cite examples of partisan and neutral sources to which you're referring if you get the chance, it would be very helpful. Cheers. ] (]) 20:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
			**::::::Judging by the headlines, we shouldn't use the 2017 sources per the Goldwater rule (psychiatrists/psychologists diagnosing people they haven't seen as patients). ]] 12:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			**:::::::Also, I may a bit confused as to where this thread begins and ends. I may be unintentionally conflating the Oaks town hall and the Proposal: Age and health concerns...Cheers. ] (]) 21:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			*The 39 minute weird man-dancing (partly to YMCA, a song about gay hookups of all things) may actually be the worst example of his cognitive decline as he was quiet instead of rambling nonsense. Indeed, it could be an example of something not at all recent. It certainly doesn't belong in this article. Perhaps elsewhere. ] (]) 00:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:Not sure if you've seen the unbiased raw video of the Oaks, PA event. On the webpage of C-SPAN's presentation of the full video , to the right there is a list of the points of interest in the video: Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) Remarks, Fmr. President Trump Remarks, Affordable Homeownership, Family Request Congressional Hearing, Cost of Living, Immigration, Russia-Ukraine War, Immigration & Deportation, Medical Emergency. Notably missing from C-SPAN's list is "weird man-dancing". ] (]) 11:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::What's your point? The C-SPAN video shows the entire event. The music starts at 45:00 and continues until the end. ]] 12:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::For context, note that the first medical emergency began at 39:00, 6 minutes before your start time. Viewing the video starting at 39:00 will give a better idea of what's going on. Thanks. ] (]) 23:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::I've seen the video and I don't see your point either. Trump just said that he is ahead in every one of the 50 states in the polls. Every state. His goofy, silent dancing was far more rational. ] (]) 00:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

			{{outdent}}
	], your recent edit summary states, "his Muslim ban is still on his website." --- I just checked Trump's website, , and it doesn't say anything about Muslims. Please self-revert your edits. Thanks. -- ] (]) 10:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

			What particularly irritates me here is the double standard of invoking ] in regard to this. No-one is asking for Misplaced Pages to state that Trump has dementia, or that he has suffered a medical cognitive decline; the issue here is that his increasingly erratic behavior has become a significant news story, and is being reported in reputable MSM sources such as the NYT and WP, who have bent over backwards to be fair to Trump, wouldn't have dreamed of doing eveen a few months ago. Yet for some reason, we're not allowed to use these ] to report these events and the public concern about them in the MSM. This is a profoundly un-encyclopedic things to do that breaks the fundamental ] policy. Rejecting any mention of significant major MSM coverage because you don't like it is just another form of ], — ] (]) 17:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
	:The added source (published yesterday) verifies it:<br><br>So it must be somewhere unless they've just removed it today.] (]) 13:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	::It is all over his website: .
	:::Thanks, didn't see those. -- ] (]) 21:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Great, I'll put it back in.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 03:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

			:But that is the consensus on this article. That MEDRS sources are required, even to have the conversation technically. ] (]) 17:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
	==Various business connections==
			:: If this is absolute, then it could not be in the Biden article. But it is. Therefore there is no way to deny the pro Trump bias. MEDRS cannot only protect Trump, but ignore Biden. To me the deletion sounds politically motivated. And that is a major problem. ] (]) 20:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] Look at the top of the page in ]. Nothing is politically motived. ] (]) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::I made a ] edit to see how this plays out . Maybe there is consensus? ] (]) 04:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I'm good with it and hope it sticks. ] (]) 14:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Sorry DN, could you link to your change? I can't seem to find it. ] (]) 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::He changed it on the Joe Biden page, not the Trump one. I had the same confusion initially. ] (]) 20:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Ah. Thank you. ] (]) 20:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Please do NOT refer to me as "he". They or them is fine. ] (]) 10:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I disagree MEDRS applies there any more than it does here, but I don't particularly care if it's in the lead or how much weight to give to it, so long as it's there. I {{em\|will}} revert if someone tries to remove all three paragraphs about it in the other article though. ] (] • ]) 10:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::An editor has now re-added ] back into the lead on ]'s BLP. I am not going to remove it, and agree that we should leave it. IMO ] now seems over-] here. ] (]) 05:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Mx. Nipples, the existence of a section on another page has absolutely zero bearing on what should be on this one. None. We go by consensus, not by precedent. ] (]) 05:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			{{cot\|{{small\|1=Off-topic about gender pronouns. ―] ] 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)}}}}
			::::::::Please do not refer to me as "Mx." or "Mr." as that appears to be your intent. They/them is accurate. ] (]) 06:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{small\|(Given that "x" is nowhere near "r" on a keyboard, I'm guessing "Mx." was not a typo but an attempt to be gender neutral. It can be read as a convenient shorthand for "Mr., Ms., or M-other, as you please". It's the best attempt available, since "They/them Nipples" would be nonsensical. Maybe we don't need to go any further down this rabbit hole, at least not on this page.) ―] ] 06:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)}}
			::::::::::I simply asked for them not to call me that, I did not get upset or make a personal attack, I just made a simple request. I'm aware of what Mx. means and I simply do not wish be referred to in that manner. I do not care why you think it's any of your business or why you feel the need to intervene here, and that is a rabbit hole that certainly does not belong here. ] (]) 06:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{small\|I read {{tq\|1="Mr." as that appears to be your intent}} to mean you thought they meant (intended) "Mr.". Sorry if I misread easily-misread writing. {{tq\|1=I do not care why you think it's any of your business or why you feel the need to intervene here}} - Now you're gettin' me riled. Look, you comment on this page, regardless of the topic, and you open yourself up to replies from anybody. There are no "private" conversations here or almost anywhere else at Misplaced Pages. You want a "private" conversation, use email. That's how it works, like it or not. End. ―] ] 06:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)}}
			::::::::::::You're the one that brought it up ''here'', and I have since moved it to a personal talk page, where it belongs. ] (]) 06:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			{{cob}}
			:::::::↑↑↑↑ Agree as to process. Other articles never affect this article ''unless a community consensus says they do for a specific discrete situation''. This is a common misconception, understandable given the human desire for consistency, but you won't find it anywhere in policy, and not for lack of attempts to make it so. ―] ] 06:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::That was more of an aside. See Riposte's removal of cited content on the current subject, referring to a now seemingly dormant discussion. ] (]) 06:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Yes.''' It's been covered extensively in media reports, which is the only criteria that really matters here. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 17:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

			*'''Question''' ] See - There has been no further discussion here for the last few days. What is still being discussed? BTW, "age and health concerns for Joe Biden" was added back into his BLP in the lead, and I see no further arguments over MEDRS. ] (]) 05:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	'''"Trump and his companies did business with New York and Philadelphia families linked to the Italian-American Mafia"'''
			*:If you have a problem with the Biden page, take it to the Biden page. There is currently no consensus to add the disputed material to this page. ] (]) 05:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::I never had a problem with the Biden BLP, but I asked you what is left to discuss here. ] (]) 06:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::I'll ask again. What is left to discuss? ] (]) 20:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I agree with you that there isn't a ton left to discuss. But the discussion did not end with your proposed addition achieving consensus. As already outlined in this thread: (1) ], what occurs on a totally different page has no bearing on this one; and (2) Even if it did, the situations are clearly distinguishable. It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because ''it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race.'' The same is not true for Trump. Thus, since the situations are distinguishable and consensus has not adopted it, it's unlikely to be added. ] (]) 20:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::To be clear, it wasn't ''my'' proposal, and the primary argument against the addition seemed to be that it violated MEDRS, not because this BLP needed to be like the Biden BLP. The Biden BLP was only used as an example of how the MEDRS argument didn't seem to hold water. ] (]) 20:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::{{tq\|"It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race."}}
			*::::I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other?
			*::::Anyway, that content was added BEFORE Biden dropped out.
			*::::So, there goes that excuse. ] (]) 05:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::{{tq\| I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other?}} We aren't. That's why I explicitly began the point with "Even if it did". We don't use another page as a source, ''but even if we did,'' the situations are clearly distinguishable for the reasons already outlined throughout the post. The addition doesn't have consensus, so it's not going to be added at this time. ] (]) 13:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for the Oaks Town Hall to be used as evidence for concerns about age and health, especially in VOICE. Far from it. I simply disagree that there is any clear violation of MEDRS to include ''something like'' (below)
			::::::Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates
			*::::::Cheers. ] (]) 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Well, that's not really what this thread entitled 'Oaks Town Hall' is about. Perhaps start a new one with your suggested text. ] (]) 21:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::Why start yet another thread? Seems like an additional time sink. ] (]) 21:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - sorry, I missed this on the talk page. Now extensive and increasing sourcing on the topic. ] (]) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:Seems like the Harris campaign and news media have moved from age and health concerns to fascism. Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns? Thanks. ] (]) 19:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::Seems there was a YouGov poll and pieces in Time magazine and the New Yorker, recently...
			*::"As the calls grow for Donald Trump to release his medical records, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris called out her opponent once more during a rally in Houston, Texas, on Friday. She pointed towards the legal battle of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other Texas right wing leaders to access the private medical records of patients who seek out-of-state abortions."
			*::"Over half of Americans, 56 percent, said they believe that Trump’s age and health would impact his ability to serve as commander-in-chief at least a little bit, according to another YouGov poll conducted earlier this month.
			*::Over one-third, 36 percent, said the former president will be “severely” undercut by his age and health. Another one-third, 33 percent, said those factors will not impact the Republican nominee.
			*::Inversely, 62 percent of Americans said Harris’s health and age will not affect her work in the White House if she is elected president, according to the survey."
			*::"couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump turned in one of his strangest performances in a campaign with no shortage of them—part of a series of oddities that may or may not constitute an October surprise but has certainly made for a surprising October. 'Who the hell wants to hear questions?' he hollered at a town hall in Pennsylvania, after two attendees had suffered medical emergencies. Then he wandered the stage for nearly forty minutes, swaying to music from his playlist—'Ave Maria,' 'Y.M.C.A.,' 'Hallelujah.'"
			*::"An increasing number of Americans say Donald Trump is too old to be president — but not as many as when President Joe Biden faced similar concerns about his age over the summer.
			*::A new poll from YouGov found that 44 percent said Trump, at age 78, is too old to lead the executive branch. That figure is up from 35 percent who said the same in a similar February survey."
			*::Cheers. ] (]) 05:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Respectfully, there is no way this is going to get consensus here. If you feel really strongly, maybe start an RfC. That would probably be the most appropriate way to displace the existing RfCs. ] (]) 07:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::I was replying to Bob K3416's recent request..."Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns?"
			*::::Your declarative statement may be a bit out of place in this context, and brings up what appears to be an inconsistency.
			*:::: As you also stated in your recent removal of cited content that is months old (clarify - irl - not the article itself)... {{tq\|"This is still being discussed on the talk page"}}
			*::::What are the means by which to reconcile {{tq\|"this is still being discussed"}}, at the same time as, {{tq\|"there is no way this is going to get consensus here"}}?
			*::::Cheers. ] (]) 08:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Thanks for your response with the links.
			*:::::Regarding the rest of your message, the logic isn't clear. Various messages here are evidence that it is still being discussed and the point that you are trying to make with your sentence, "What is the means..." is unclear. For one thing, note that you are comparing an edit summary on the article page with a message on this talk page. Seems like apples and oranges. ] (]) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Darknipples has now edited their comment, although the argument isn't any more compelling imo. ] (]) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::I was about to add (Btw I corrected my grammar slip) Reverting under the auspices of "it's under discussion", gives the appearance of contradiction to the recent declaration that "there is no way to achieve consensus"
			*::::::Granted, I wouldn't completely disagree with Riposte97's removal of some of the context, but the rest seems like it could be DUE. (below)
			::::::Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates.<ref name="Renewed scrutiny">{{Cite news \|last=Kranish \|first=Michael \|date=July 22, 2024 \|title=Trump's age and health under renewed scrutiny after Biden's exit \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/22/trump-age-health/ \|newspaper=] \|access-date=13 October 2024 }}</ref>
			*::::::A partial revert leaving this portion would seem fine. ] (]) 20:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::The second sentence wasn't in the given source. The insinuation of being in poor health since becoming a politician is contradicted by the fact that he served 4 years as president without any apparent chronic health problem or physical weakness, and he is currently vigorously campaigning for president. Be careful of age discrimination where healthy people are presumed weak and unhealthy because they are old. If you were elderly, healthy and strong, I don't think you would like people insinuating that you were unhealthy and weak because you were chronologically old. Be well. ] (]) 08:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::{{tq\|"The second sentence wasn't in the given source."}}
			*::::::::Good catch, I pulled it from the edit that was reverted so maybe the citation might have been placed further in.
			*::::::::As far as "insinuating he is in poor health", that is not what the proposal is about. The proposal was for reports regarding public concern for his age and health, that does not involve speculation or "insinuate" anything specific as to violate MEDRS.
			::::::::"The age of presidential candidates has been a key issue for voters this year. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, conducted before last week’s Republican convention, found that 60 percent of Americans said Trump is too old for another term as president, including 82 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans."
			*::::::::] (]) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::His age is already in the article. ] (]) 04:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::Water is wet. ] (]) 05:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Yes'''. There is overwhelming and ] coverage of it at this point; the fact that it is speculative (which some people object to above) doesn't matter, since we do cover speculation when it has sufficient coverage and is clearly relevant to the subject. As ] says, {{tq\|If an '''allegation''' or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it}}, emphasis mine. For recent coverage, which someone requested above, see eg. <ref>{{cite web\|accessdate=2024-10-31\|title=Americans are increasingly concerned about Donald Trump’s age and fitness for office\|url=https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50808-americans-are-increasingly-concerned-about-donald-trumps-age-and-fitness-for-office\|website=today.yougov.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|first1=Rebecca\|last1=Schneid\|accessdate=2024-10-31\|title=The Controversy Over Trump's Medical Records, Explained\|url=https://time.com/7099183/donald-trump-medical-records-absent-controversy-presidential-election-2024/\|date=27 October 2024\|website=TIME}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|first1=Filip\|last1=Timotija\|accessdate=2024-10-31\|title=Many Americans worried about Trump’s age, but less than Biden: Survey\|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4955179-growing-concerns-trump-biden-age/\|date=26 October 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|accessdate=2024-10-31\|title=A growing number of Americans are concerned with Trump’s age\|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-age-voters-mental-health-b2636214.html\|date=27 October 2024\|website=The Independent}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|accessdate=2024-10-31\|title=Trump would be the oldest person to become president. He's not sharing health details\|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-harris-presidential-election-age-health-medical-records-7bb8212c1024748371e43b85e137bae5\|date=16 October 2024\|website=AP News}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|accessdate=2024-10-31\|title=Trump acts erratically. Is this age-related decline?\|url=https://www.deccanherald.com/world/trump-acts-erratically-is-this-age-related-decline-3250551\|website=Deccan Herald}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|first1=Joanne\|last1=Lynn\|accessdate=2024-10-31\|title=I’m a geriatric physician. Here’s what I think is going on with Trump’s executive function\|url=https://www.statnews.com/2024/10/30/trump-cognitive-health-executive-function-biden-aging-president/\|date=30 October 2024}}</ref>; for older coverage, there's a massive number of sources on ]. --] (]) 15:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:the article have all the negatives about Trump or they have been put under a bad light. For eg: he met north korean president but without decreasing the nuclear prospect. It doesn't consider that Trump's predecessors or successors hasn't visited him and downright refused to that idea. And north korea did decreased thier frequency in building nuclear weapon. These article seems to be put forward by a Trump hater, and doesn't even mention all the good things he has done, like low inflation, boosting economy etc. ] (]) 07:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Yes'''. See ]. ] (]) 23:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
			* I think it's time to close this discussion. ] (]) 03:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:What rationale? Stale? Consensus? We need a rationale or we just let things fall off the page naturally. Of course we've just added another 14 days by merely saying this. ―] ] 04:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::There is at least consensus to change Consensus item #39 (last modified July 2021) to allow discussion regarding Trump's mental health or fitness for office even without diagnosis. Biden's cognitive health has been in his article since 9/2023: ] ] (]) 06:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::Uninvolved close sounds prudent. Cheers. ] (]) 10:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:I was confusing "close with consensus assessment" with "close to get stuff off the page per consensus 13". Sorry Bob. ―] ] 18:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''', go on about Trump not living up to his promises to release his health info, but jeez, just don't add speculation. Let's do a litmus test: if I speculated about @] having ] on Misplaced Pages, my ass would get a harsh warning, if not a ], so apply that thinking to Trumpty-Dumpty. It's a person, yes, and it's bad to speculate like that about any person. <small>I wonder what Trump thinks about all this Misplaced Pages obsession about him...</small> <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 14:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

			{{sources-talk}}
	I am not a fan of Donald Trump but really, let's stop pretending Misplaced Pages is unbiased. --] (]) 18:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
			{{archive bottom}}
	::In the Table of Contents you'll find a section titled "Alleged links to organized crime". .] (]) 19:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::The section is sourced, and includes the fair assessment that he was never charged with any crime and that it was pretty much necessary for any businessperson of that time to do business with mob figures. Looks balanced and NPOV to me. "The Mafia's candidate" - those are your words, not Misplaced Pages's. --] (]) 19:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

			== RfC on describing Trumpism in lead ==
	:I think this section is a BLP violation and should be removed per ]. Thoughts? --] (]) 08:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 10:40, 14 December 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2049705633}}<!-- END PIN -->
	::Yes, please remove it. Hillary is from Chicago; there could be similar fanciful ideas on her talkpage.] (]) 08:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
			{{rfc\|bio\|pol\|rfcid=E2D89B1}}
	:::I don't know whether it should be included or not -- but it's detailed with cites, not fanciful; and what does the fact that Clinton spent her childhood in Chicago have to do with this? ] (]) 10:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
			The current lead contains a simple mention of Trumpism. Should a brief description be added to this mention? A proposed wording for the added text, which is also up for debate here: {{tq\|characterized by ], "]" nationalism, and economic ].}} — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)<br> Addendum: A shorter version of the proposed addition could look like {{tq\|led to ], a ] movement.}} — ] (]) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::<s>I agree with {{u\|Objective3000}}--{{u\|Zigzig20s}}'s comment with zero basis is inappropriate and itself a borderline BLP violation. --] (]) 16:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)</s>
			:{{small\|Previous discussion at ]. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	::::Ridiculous. Neither candidate is "the Mafia's candidate". You know that's what I meant. We need to stop with the smears here and focus on their policies, please. The election is a serious matter.] (]) 17:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as ]'s lead describes in broad terms what "]"ism is and ]'s describes what "]" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I re-read your comment and saw it in a more generous light. Sorry about that. The broader point is that there are reliable sources discussing alleged ties between Trump and organized crime. I'm not aware of any such sources for Clinton, so it's not an apt comparison. --] (]) 17:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	::~~:::One~~ ~~way~~ ~~to treat it seriously is~~ to ~~ignore~~ ~~the~~ ~~allegations that Trump~~ is ~~in bed with the mafia, unless concrete evidence emerges~~. ~~– ~~]~~ ~~(]) 17:23, 18 ~~August~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		:'''Suppport''': we need to know what Trumpism is about.--] (]) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about ] - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. <span style="border:1px solid#880808">]</span><span style="background:#880808;border:1px solid#880808"><span style="color:white"><sup>]</sup></span></span> 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Right, that is my position as well. --] (]) 17:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
			:'''Comment''' Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. ] (]) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::There is a difference between having very remote business interests because real estate development is a small market, and being their "candidate" (sic). I object to this talkpage section. It should be closed/archived immediately.] (]) 17:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:~~:::::::No~~ ~~one~~ is ~~closing~~ a ~~day-old~~, ~~legitimate~~ ~~discussion~~ ~~about~~ ~~article~~ ~~content.~~ --] (]) 17:40, 18 ~~August~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		:'''Oppose''' a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? ] (]) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. ] (]) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::support the removal in this main BLP, but support keeping ] in the sub-article, per ], although a header edit may be appropriate there.] (]) 17:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. ] (]) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	*That title is a BLP violation; I have changed it. ] (]) 17:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: Support removal of this section until someone finds a top-quality ''high-circulation'' mainstream source (like Time, WSJ, BBC, NYT, Reuters, AP) that supports it. See the ] essay. A variable-quality medium-circulation source (like FOX, CNN) isn't good enough to support a contentious statement about someone.
	:::::::: "''Contentious'' material is material that people might take a position on for ideological reasons."
	:::::: What if we found support for the material in both FOX ''and'' CNN? In that case I think it would likely be judged (by a large majority of Misplaced Pages editors and the public, whether biased or not) as comparatively non-contentious. We could then cite ''both'' variable-quality sources! --] (]) 19:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::I think CNN is usually adequate but the bigger problem is that this particular article attributes the allegations to other sources, suggesting that CNN itself did little or no fact checking. --] (]) 20:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	*In my opinion, the real BLP violation was the section in the main article presenting Trump as the Mafia's candidate. Thankfully, it has been blanked by {{u\|DrFleischman}}. I am personally on the left of Bernie Sanders, but there are some methods I find unacceptable. --] (]) 19:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	::When did it ever say that? It simply said that Trump did business with the Mafia, which is well documented. Wasn't it you that used the phrase "Mafia's candidate?" ] (]) 21:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	::*My wicked sense of humor, I suppose. --] (]) 00:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''' as misplaced for the lead, and per Artem. ] (]) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ==
			*'''Oppose''' too wordy in an already bloated article. Artem is indeed correct. ] (]) 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' because “Trumpism” in the lead should be replaced with “MAGA”, which is a much more widely discussed and widespread thing.] (]) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{ping\|Artem P75\|Slatersteven\|Nikkimaria\|Nemov}} To those opposing the proposed text based on concerns about length, would you support a shorter addition such as {{tq\|led to ], a ] movement.}}? — ] (]) 04:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' We don't have room for this, and this isn't the Trumpism article, it is the Trump article. Also, this would need to be added to the body first, since the lead follows the body. ] (]) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Anythingyouwant. I've never heard of Trumpism before. Neither has Britannica, which instead has an article for MAGA movement. -] (]) 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:What the Britannica article describes is exactly what our article at ] describes. The term MAGA movement should probably be added to that article's lead as a synonym. — ] (]) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::It's a redirect. The said, {{tq\|But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it.}} -] (]) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -] (]) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' mainly as {{TQ\|it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article}} per Artem, also because ] isn't a ''"a thought-through philosophy, a carefully mapped world view"'' inextricably linked to the man in the way that Marxism or Leninism are. Trumpism is more of a term descibing a series of populist instincts which are not very often used to characterise reactions/policies etc. When/if Trumpism itself becomes more elaborated, and the term more used, WEIGHT might then dictate a brief definition. At present it would be at least unnecessary and potentially confusing.] (]) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

			:* '''Support''' Very much ] to summarise the key tenets of his political ideology, much more so than discussing specific policies as in the status quo. I’m very confused about the opposes, however the leads of ] and ] only mention their ideologies rather than describe them
	As seen here on Trump's position page: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
			:] (]) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Weak oppose''', while it's only a few extra words it's still more to an already-too-big article, and the link to the Trumpism article is there for a reason. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 10:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			:*'''Weak Oppose''', Agree with same sentiment as @] 's comment above. Seems like redundancy when we have a link that lets readers click on it if they don't understand a concept or definition. This also sets bad precedence to have to define every single political descriptor.
	I feel that Trump's position on the 2A should be mentioned as part of his platform in the lede so I added "protection of the Second Amendment", as it's stated on Trump's site "''Protecting'' that freedom is imperative" and to go along with similarly brief statements like "reform of veterans' care" and "replacement of the Affordable Care Act" but was
			:] (]) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''': Trump's lead is already "huuuge." And considering that ] (which discusses the use of {{tq\|"technical terms or terms of art and jargon specific to the subject matter"}}) asks the question, {{tq\|"On the other hand, do not treat every “scientific” word as a technical term. Ask the question: Is this the only article or one of a very few where the term might be encountered in Misplaced Pages?"}}, and seeing as there is another page entirely dedicated to discussing the topic, and where we're already pushing ] best practices with the length and depth of Trump's ], let's move on.
			:As a side note, ] has some handy recommendations for handling formatting of the word "Trumpism" for those interested. ] (]) 17:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Support''' : For me this is almost a mandatory addition for a very simple reason, the lead has zero words used to describe Trump's rise to power. Zero. This is not acceptable. These three very simple and short words describe it very well and are widely sourced. The description should take its place at the end of the second paragraph, in a chronological order, to either describe Trumpism or even more directly his first election campaign. The objection that the lead is not convincing. Other things can go. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
	Does anyone know a suitable wording? ] (]) 23:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Well, without taking a position pro or con about whether something like this belongs in the lead, I can certainly discuss how it might be clarified. To say that his platform includes protection of the Second Amendment is vague. Does it mean he wants to protect the Second Amendment from being repealed? Does it mean he wants to appoint judges who protect a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment? Does it mean he wants to make sure that government officials don't violate whatever the Second Amendment means according to the Supreme Court? The whole thing is very vague. It would be much clearer to say that his platform includes protecting a broad ] right of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms.] (]) 01:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	::All politicians make vague, feel-good promises. Protect the Second Amendment, save Medicare, support veterans, tax reform. It's generally impossible to pin these down to specific proposals or actions, and it's not our job to try. We can't put words in their mouth. We can only report what they say. As to whether to include it in the lede: the lede should contain a few (no more than half a dozen) of his best known issues (i.e., most widely reported or most frequently and at length expounded by him in his speeches). Offhand I don't think his 2nd Amendment position is one of those half dozen. Furthermore, it doesn't distinguish him; all Republicans and many Democrats say the same thing; it's just an expected check-mark on their platform. --] (]) 03:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::The Misplaced Pages article says "Trump supports the Second Amendment and says he is opposed to gun control in general". Almost every politician says they support the Second Amendment (though they interpret it in very different ways). But general opposition to gun control might be brief and distinctive enough for the lead; we can check the sources but I think general opposition to gun control has been a constant and major theme.] (]) 03:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::It's a very big topic in his rallies—usually in conjunction with SC picks—and there was of course a lot of coverage on it last week. Clinton's article also talks of "protecting women's rights" in the lede which is even more vague than protecting the 2A and something that you'd expect every candidate to say. Sorry if that's an otherstuffexists argument. ] (]) 11:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:It is not significant that a candidate for president supports the Constitution. It is only significant when s/he opposes it. ] (]) 05:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I wouldn't go that far, but 99% of all descriptions of policy positions that reference constitutional language are going to be non-neutral. Mainstream reliable sources do not talk about protecting or supporting the Second Amendment. They talk about opposing gun control (or occasionally, supporting the gun industry). --] (]) 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Both candidates support gun control to some degree. For example neither supports the right of prisoners to keep and bear arms, although they enjoy all the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights. ] (]) 17:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::To be clear, I'm not saying anything about the candidates' positions on gun control. All I'm saying is that when our articles discuss gun control, they should do so using neutral language, which generally means no references to the Second Amendment. --] (]) 17:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Which is why we should not "discuss gun control" in this article, which would mean specific proposals or policies from him - of which I don't think he has any, or doesn't talk about specifics in his speeches. We should discuss or list what he says, not what we think he meant, and not some obscure passage in his written platform (if he never bothers to spell it out in his public utterances). If this means we use somebody's weasel words, we use them - or else leave the subject out. I favor leaving it out in this case; he is just saying what every other candidate says, reciting a Republican mantra. --] (]) 17:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::He says quite a bit beyond mantras. See ].] (]) 17:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::If reliable sources describe his positions on gun control, then so should we. --] (]) 19:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::We do describe them - at the Political Positions article. This is a biography. It is not the place to lay out all his political positions in detail - just to mention a few highlights as they are relevant to understanding the man. --] (]) 14:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

			== The Apprentice ==
	== Removal of newspaper ad, Trump's first documented hint of candidacy in 1987 ==

			I'm making a couple minor but bold changes to the TOC outline. This article doesn't have a TOC item for ''The Apprentice'', which was a milestone in Trump's life. ''The Apprentice'' led Trump to licensing deals worldwide. Any help is welcomed especially to keep the chrono order. For example, I fudged the SAG-AFTRA para out of order to keep it.
	] by Trump to several newspapers was removed in an edit by ] on August 16th with the summary ''"fails NFCC#8, also image of copyrighted text can be replaced by limited textual excerpt if appropriate"''. I would respectfully submit that this image be restored. It seems to me that in the context of this article it does meet this NFCC criterion, as its omission removes in national politics.

			{{cot\|title=Before}}
	With regards to the limited textual excerpt, the copyrighted text itself is not the subject-matter the picture is meant to convey, nor the sources attached, but rather it is placed there to illustrate the letter itself as it appeared in newspapers on that date. That a full page political ad was placed by a real estate developer in several national newspapers, without any other context, is in itself significant given the subsequent events. Moreover, the fair usage of this article specifically meets Misplaced Pages's ] in that it does not replace the copyrighted text itself, nor does it feature a copyrighted image, but rather illustrates the publication in question. In contrast to the superfluous nature of other images in this article, I feel this is not without its contribution.
			1 Early life and education
	--] ] 04:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
			2 Personal life
			2.1 Family
			2.2 Health
			3 Business career
			3.1 Real estate
			3.1.1 Manhattan and Chicago developments
			3.1.2 Atlantic City casinos
			3.1.3 Clubs
			3.2 Side ventures
			3.2.1 Trump University
			3.3 Foundation
			3.4 Legal affairs and bankruptcies
			3.5 Wealth
			4 Media career
			5 Early political aspirations (1987–2014)
			{{cob}}
			{{cot\|title=After}}
			1 Early life and education
			2 Personal life
			2.1 Family
			2.2 Health
			3 Business career
			3.1 Real estate
			3.1.1 Manhattan and Chicago developments
			3.1.2 Atlantic City casinos
			3.1.3 Clubs
			3.2 Side ventures
			3.3 Foundation
			3.4 Trump University
			3.5 Legal affairs and bankruptcies
			3.6 Wealth
			4 Media career
			5 The Apprentice
			6 Licensing the Trump name
			7 Early political aspirations (1987–2014)
			{{cob}}
			-] (]) 18:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{u\|Nikkimaria}}, a barnstar is on its way for . Thank you!
			:Is there a way to keep some of this? {{tq\|Biographer ] writes that he was an athletic teenager who dreamed of a Hollywood career.}} In 1969 Trump followed his heart, walked into the Palace Theater, and asked to become a producer, invested in one show and lost his money. I have more reading to do but I think Haberman repeats ] that Trump always wanted to be a Hollywood star. I think it's important to our narrative to keep the progression from youth -> TV -> a political stage. -] (]) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

			::I'd suggest waiting until we can frame that progression more holistically, since as presented it was disconnected from his eventual media career. (Plus I don't think athleticism is a necessary part of that progression). ] (]) 14:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	*"To illustrate" is not a sufficient rationale for using a nonfree image. The meaning of the statement illustrated is quite clear from its text alone; therefore the image fails to satisfy NFCC#8. ] (]) 11:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
			:::Thank you for the correction. Trump was a remarkably good first baseman but we don't have to cite the one sentence that combines sports and Hollywood. So I agree to skip over sports.
	::*The standard license non-free license literally states "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of newspaper pages to '''illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question'''...qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." This somehow negates contextual significance? Misplaced Pages's own policies explicitly contradict this.--] ] 13:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
			:::My mistake, it was ], Barrett's research assistant. Everybody I've read so far includes Trump's interest in Hollywood:
	:::*''Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding''. Meeting fair use license standards is necessary, but not sufficient, to justify the use of a nonfree image. ] (]) 14:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
			:::* {{tq\|Before heading off to college he was fairly certain that he wanted a career in show business, not real estate. He said he planned to attend the University of Southern California to study filmmaking and had already produced a Broadway show called ''Paris is Out''.{{sfn\|O'Brien\|2015\|p=53}}}}
	::::*See my first post, to say that it does not contribute any matter to the article would be, in my opinion, fallacious. When one considers this was his first formal press release of a political nature, I still hold that this does contribute to the readers understanding of the article given its unorthodox nature. I'll leave it at this until ] addresses the matter.--] ] 14:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
			:::* {{tq\|Even after joining the family firm, Donald could not shake his youthful interest in show business and the faster track to fame that offered.{{sfn\|Haberman\|2022\|p=39}}}}
	:::::*''Support'' reinstatement. (1) Most pre-1990 advertisements aren't found in searchable databases. The image illustrates that the text was indeed published. (2) It illustrates Trump's sense of graphic design as it was thirty years ago, when he first began publicly expressing his political ambitions. (Was it more/less sophisticated than his current sense of graphic design? Of architectural design?) (3) It indirectly aided my understanding by providing a clear graphic 'anchor' to the section in the body where his political ambitions are first discussed. (Perhaps it could be better positioned, though?) --] (]) 19:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
			:::* {{tq\|In college he had contemplated a movie career and took half a step in that direction {{sfn\|Buettner\|Craig\|2024\|p=108}}}}
			:::* {{tq\|For a time, he flirted with signing up for film school at the University of Southern California—reflecting his lifelong love of movies—but he enrolled instead at Fordham University because he wanted to be closer to home.{{sfn\|Kranish\|Fisher\|2017\|p=45}}}}
			:::* {{tq\|The full extent of Donald Trump's college-years rebellion involved fantasizing about a career in the theater or film.{{sfn\|D'Antonio\|2015\|p=48}}}}

			So where does it belong? I see no reason to use four words to say USC. How about this? {{tq\|Trump considered film school and a show business career, but in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University.}} Also I should add that he was a producer at ''The Apprentice''. -] (]) 20:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	I have no strong opinion on whether NFCC applies to this ad, but I propose that we restore the following which is still valuable biographical information. In fact, {{U\|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}}, why didn't you leave this text in in some form?

			:How about {{tq\|Trump considered film school but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University.}}? ] (]) 00:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Trump first expressed interest in running for office in 1987, when he spent $100,000 to place full-page ads critiquing U.S. defense policy in several newspapers.<ref>{{cite news \|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/02/nyregion/trump-gives-a-vague-hint-of-candidacy.html \|title=Trump Gives a Vague Hint of Candidacy \|newspaper=The New York Times \|first=Michael \|last=Oreskes \|date=September 2, 1987 \|accessdate=February 17, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/09/02/between-the-lines-of-a-millionaires-ad/9c6db9c3-f7d6-4aa4-9ec4-a312feb2639e/ \|title=Between the Lines of a Millionaire's Ad \|newspaper=The Washington Post \|first=Howard \|last=Kurtz \|date=September 2, 1987 \|accessdate=February 17, 2016}}</ref>
			::I'd prefer to better follow the sources. How about {{tq\|Trump considered a show business career but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University.}}?
	{{reflist-talk}}
			::(Also correction, I haven't ''read'' all these books; I make use of indices.) -] (]) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	- ]] 21:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|he was a producer}}: if you look at the credits of TV shows, you'll often see the stars of the show also listed as executive producers. It could just mean that they're the big names necessary to get financing for the show; they might also get input on scripts and story lines. Initially, ] planned to have a different business tycoon headlining the show each season but found few people interested in the job, and after the success of the first season he and NBC settled on Trump.
	::Does anyone object to this sentence being restored? - ]] 21:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
			::::Yet you lead with "From 2004 to 2015, Trump was co-producer and host..." (most important position in the section). I don't understand your edits. You removed the person who created ''The Apprentice'', and the person who created the catchphrase. This must be corrected. -] (]) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|contemplated/flirted with a movie career}}: who hasn't dreamed of Hollywood? It isn't noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia. He didn't attend film school or take acting lessons. So he lost $70,000 in 1973 to get his name on the playbill of a broadway play that flopped. That's chump change compared to the $1.17 billion in business losses he reported to the IRS between 1984 and 1995. ]] 17:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Seems to be moot now, although I'd support removing the Broadway flop. -] (]) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{od}}Sources to explain the importance of giving the origin of "You're fired." Trump didn't make this up by himself, although he tried and failed to trademark it.
			* NY Post:
			* WNYC:
			* Business Insider: made note that Trump borrowed his trademark phrase for his NBC show, "The Apprentice," from Steinbrenner, who first popularized "you're fired" in his years-long, love-hate relationship with manager Billy Martin, whom Steinbrenner hired and fired a total of five times.]
			-] (]) 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The NY Post is not a reliable source (also doesn't mention an origin for the catchphrase). Haberman cites her source for "homage to Steinbrenner" on pg. 528. It's . Smith mentions this featuring Steinbrenner and Yankees on and off-again manager Billy Martin. It’s one sentence in a long article, and it merely says that Steinbrenner "first popularized" the phrase. Smith's 2017 BI article quotes former Yankees employee Ray Negron saying that Trump "borrowed that from the great George Steinbrenner, and people forget that" (another opinion), and in his 2019 NBC article Smith doesn't make this claim. Vince McMahon had been "you're fired" as his catchphrase since 1998, and Trump was a regular at WWE events, so that’s also a possible source. Third possibility: He remembered the phrase from the many movies in which it was used in more or less violent scenes: , , , , , of movies going back to 1933. The only thing we know for sure is that Trump used it and in 2004. ]] 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{tq\|co-producer}}: I hadn't noticed that mistake. AFAIK, he was credited as executive producer - credit and pay without actual duties. They also had to edit out raw footage of Trump making sexist and racist or just plain dumb remarks. I'll get back to this later or tomorrow. ]] 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't wish to engage in an edit war but it is disrespectful to omit the man who created ''The Apprentice''. Instead in this article we piled all the glory on Mr. Trump.
			::We've erased the connection to Trump's political aspirations (which are in the very next section).
			::Haberman wrote that Trump knew Steinbrenner since the 1980s. Are we splitting hairs to hide the issues? If you don't like Mr. Smith's choice of words, choose another per ]. One trademark lawyer says "You're fired" . This point I'll concede because you keep arguing.
			::I defer to your years of editing this article. But I ask that you please listen to new information. Buettner & Craig, Kranish & Fisher (and Haberman and O'Brien) are the best sources we have so far, aren't they? -] (]) 15:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Well, if you don't wish to engage in an edit war. IMO, we had a neutrally written paragraph on the ''Apprentice'', explaining what it was and what it did for his image. It was rewritten quite a few times in the six years I've been involved in editing this article, by different editors. That the show was somebody else's brainchild is a detail that belongs in the shows article, and that it ran for 14 seasons is confusing without the explanation that two "seasons" per year were broadcast from 2004 to 2006. I haven't gotten around to looking up previous discussions and the editing history. ]] 19:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Misplaced Pages says {{tq\|The Celebrity Apprentice is linked in seasons to its precursor TV show, The Apprentice, which consists of seasons 1–6 and season 10. The Celebrity Apprentice consists of seasons 7–9 and 11–15.}} Perhaps those are the kinds of details this article can skip. {{u\|Nikkimaria}}, would you possibly have time to copyedit the ] paragraph? -] (]) 20:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Do we really need to explain that Trump didn't invent the extremely common phrase "you're fired"? Is anybody actually dumb enough to need that pointed out to them? And, if they are, how did they manage to get to this website?--] (]) (]) 22:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Guessing most Wikipedians are too young to understand the cultural reference. -] (]) 02:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Here's a start at compromise.
			:::::{{tqb\|Producer ] made Trump a TV star{{sfn\|Buettner\|Craig\|2024\|p=7\|loc="Mark Burnett, the television producer who made Trump a star, did not just hand him a fortune."}} when he created '']'', which Trump co-produced and hosted from 2004 to 2015 (including variant '']''). On the shows, he was a superrich chief executive who eliminated contestants with the ] "you're fired". ''The New York Times'' called his portrayal "highly flattering, highly fictionalized". The shows remade Trump's image for millions of viewers nationwide.<ref>{{cite news\|last1=Grynbaum\|first1=Michael M.\|last2=Parker\|first2=Ashley\|author-link2=Ashley Parker\|date=July 16, 2016\|title=Donald Trump the Political Showman, Born on 'The Apprentice'\|work=]\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/17/business/media/donald-trump-apprentice.html\|access-date=July 8, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine \|last=Nussbaum \|first=Emily \|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/31/the-tv-that-created-donald-trump \|title=The TV That Created Donald Trump \|magazine=] \|date=July 24, 2017 \|access-date=October 18, 2023}}</ref> With the related licensing agreements, they earned him more than $400 million.<ref>{{cite news\|last=Poniewozik \|first=James \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/28/arts/television/trump-taxes-apprentice.html \|title=Donald Trump Was the Real Winner of 'The Apprentice' \|work=] \|date=September 28, 2020 \|access-date=October 18, 2023}}</ref>}}
			::::{{u\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}}, OK to edit the above in place if you want to. -] (]) 02:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{talk-reflist}}

	== ~~"Terror~~ ~~countries"~~ ==		== Edit War ==
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 15:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1736133600}}<!-- END PIN -->
			I think there is an edit war going on here. Following the ], Trump left office. Till he won, the title was clear, post-presidency. After he won, an edit war started.
			For some weird reason, these are the choices at hand:
			--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			1. Interpresidency
			2. First post-presidency
			3. post-presidency (current)
			--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			At first, people used choice number 3. Then the edit war started after the election, and people cannot decide between these choices. We need better security for this article, Extended confirmed is clearly not doing it here. Just please decide. ] (]) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The situation is neither uncommon nor illegitimate when there is no clear talk page consensus. See ] for another example. It has nothing to do with the level of protection. Regardless, the next level after ECP is full protection, which is not going to happen. ―] ] 19:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Well, you see, Edit protection is next, ensuring only experienced people can do it. Look, i'm just saying we have to be really careful around this particular article mainly from the controversies. I have asked an experienced person to assess the situation. ] (]) 18:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:On January 20, 2025, the title of the section should be changed to "Post-presidency (2021–2025)". If there is a "second post-presidency (2029–)", we can change that to "First post-presidency (2021–2025)". I googled "Inter-presidency" and got a bunch of hits for Inter Milan President Beppe Marotta. ]] 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::"Dormancy (2021–2025)". Or remission. ;) ―] ] 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::He was not dormant, rather pretty active. False claims rised before he finally conceded. Not to be rude, but this title wouldn't be the best. I'll admit, we do need a clear consensus. ] (]) 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::We thought it was the end of the movie but it was just an intermission. ]] 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Correct, although after "the end of the movie" he was still active. And "Dormancy" was suggested in ] not ]. Dormancy is described as a non-active state, although his activity between 2021 and now is active. ] (]) 23:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I support option 1 as the most accurate of the three. ] (]) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The word isn't in any dictionary. ]] 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			Why not use the model of the Cleavland article? ] (]) 19:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			: That's pretty much what I'm proposing, except for the "election of 18xx" part (we have the campaign/election sections instead) and not knowing how long Trump's second presidency and post-presidency will last. ]] 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Legally it has to end in 2028. ] (]) 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::January 20, 2029. He's 78 — we'll see what happens. ]] 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Problem, it uses First post-presidency. It is already inaccurate but I will not discuss unrelated articles. ] (]) 23:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::"§7 First presidency (2017–2021)" could change to "§7 Presidency (2017–2021)"? He only served one term. -] (]) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::This is concerning the following section. And I'm not sure if I should say this but I don't think we should start this on the Grover Cleveland talk page. ] (]) 23:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::And I was referring to the Cleveland article when I said First post-presidency. Sorry for not pointing it out. ] (]) 23:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			'''Between presidential terms (2021–2025)'''. Cheers, ] (]) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:You know, that sounds like a good idea.
			:Any objections? ] (]) 17:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Works for me. ] (]) 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Solution in search of a problem, but meh as long as you wait until after the inauguration — just in case lightning strikes or an Acme anvil falls. ]] 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make the change after the inauguration on 1-20-2025. Regards, ] (]) 22:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Well, sounds good to me.
			:::Ok, what should the next steps be?
			:::Also, just curious, who pinned this? ] (]) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{tq\|who pinned this?}} ―] ] 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Huh — looks as though BoB K tried to (because I said "meh"??) and then you did? Can't figure out what happened. My suggestion: unpin. ]] 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I care about ''how'' it's pinned. Apathetic on ''whether'' it should be pinned. ―] ] 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::As I mentioned in my edit summary, "added template to prevent archiving of this thread until a week after inauguration". I did that because this discussion was about taking an action after the inauguration. Mandruss changed the time from a week after the inauguration to 10 years and made an announcement in a box at the top of the section. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Regards, ] (]) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Well it seems all set. ] (]) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			==Bulking down the article: Currently over 400Kb in system size==
	I know Trump used the term, but what in the world are "terror countries"? Just because he uses the term doesn't mean an encyclopedia needs to pretend that it's an actual thing.] (]) 22:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	::It's shorthand for nations with a "proven history" of terrorism.] (]) 22:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Says who? It's bad writing and non-encyclopedic.] (]) 22:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::And what the hey is a "proven history of terrorism"? ] (]) 22:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::"Proven history" is a phrase used four times in this BLP, e.g. "Trump later changed his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply to people originating from countries with a 'proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies', or countries 'compromised by terrorism'."] (]) 22:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

			This article page is so large it's daunting and it's continuing to grow. On inauguration day later in January the article is likely to quickly grow by at least another 50Kb in system size once the new section for the next 4 years of presidency is added with the already written Misplaced Pages pages for the New Cabinet nominations, etc. The article should go through a significant bulking down process before the next presidential term is added later next month in January. Adding this discussion here on Talk page for thoughts from editors about which sections in this article to split or fork, which to shorten, which to abridge when sibling Misplaced Pages articles are already written for many of the topics in the different subsections of this article. This Trump biography article would seem better if it could be made shorter than 400Kb in the current system size. ] (]) 23:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	:The source used the term without quotes, so we can do the same. Trump explained it, according to the source: "where you have tremendous terrorism in the world, you know what those places are." ] (]) 22:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	:~~:That's~~ ~~not~~ an ~~explanation.~~ We ~~need~~ to ~~be careful not to put Trump-speak in Misplaced Pages voice.~~] (]) 00:46, 20 ~~August~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		:Why ? Not enough server space ? ] (]) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Many reasons, a few being technical, most being readability concerns. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	Somebody has changed the sentence in the "immigration policy" section to read '' "According to his campaign, his revised proposal would bar Muslims from, as he coined, but not specified it, "terror states".'' IMO that is awkwardly worded as well as inaccurate; his attempts to specify what he means are included in the very same paragraph. The version it replaced - ''"his revised proposal would not bar Muslims from non-terror countries"'' - was even worse, and does not appear to be true according to the source (his spokesperson refused to confirm that he would allow Muslims from peaceful countries). And it does not appear to be correct that his revised version refers to just "Muslims" from terror countries; in fact he says it would ban "people" from terror countries. Let's try to work out a consensus sentence. For now I'm just going to replace "from, as he coined, but not specified it" with "what he called "terror states". BTW according to the reference provided there, "terror states" was his spokesperson's word, not his. Do we know if he has said "terror states" or "terror countries"? --] (]) 00:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
			:::Agree with {{u\|Cessaune}}. The article is currently taking about 55-65 minutes to read from top to bottom, which seems much longer than Misplaced Pages size guidelines. The technical size issue is that the article is now at about 410Kb, and on Jan 20 on inauguration day the section for the ] of 120Kb is going to be added to this article all at once. That is a total of 410Kb + 120Kb = 530Kb. At over 500Kb in size following inauguration day, that size for the article seems excessive and daunting. Are there any thoughts from editors about bulking down this article before the second inauguration on Jan 20 to make the article more readable for Misplaced Pages readers? ] (]) 15:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I agree. I think excessive detail occurs when the information is new and seems important at the time, but not after a few years. ] (]) 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Are you kidding with the bias in the introduction? ==
	: I'm not up to date with recent changes on this article and I don't have time to look at this but this (https://en.wikipedia.org/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Muslims_immigration_ban) should be a fairly solid overview of the frequent changes to the Muslim ban. I agree that we should preferably not use short-hands such as "terror countries" when Trump has clarified it to refer to countries with a "proven history of terrorism". We should preferably note that Trump's categorization of which countries fall under that label remains vague. ] (]) 00:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	::This article shows the different descriptions he has used over time. -- ] (]) 09:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

			The intro should highlight that he was re-elected by the American people in reaction to the progressive agenda pushed by the current administration, high inflationary periods between 2020-2024, and a desire for better economic performance. This victory was unprecedented given the amount of lawsuits against Trump and the extreme anti-Trump sentiment in the media. ] (]) 05:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	Let's start over. Take another look at the whole paragraph, as currently in the article:
	::One of Trump's most controversial proposals was his initial plan for a "total and complete", but temporary, ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States. Trump later changed his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism". Trump said that the new proposal was not a "rollback" of his initial proposal to ban all Muslim immigrants describing it as an expansion. He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting". According to his campaign, his revised proposal would bar people only from what he called "terror states".

			:Misplaced Pages articles are written based off of what reliable sources say, not based on your ] on why he was elected or how "unprecedented" it is. ] (]) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	Actully that final sentence - the one that says "terror states" - is redundant anyhow. His actual current position, with "proven history" and "compromised", is already in the paragraph. The final sentence only muddies the water. I propose we simply get rid of the "terror countries" wording that is giving us so much trouble, by deleting that last sentence. --] (]) 14:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
			::The article doesn't seem to give any reason for Trump's victory. I did a quick google search "" and the first thing I found was . In this source there was Anthony Salvanto, CBS News' executive director of elections and surveys, who said that there were three main factors behind voters' support of Trump: the role of the economy, a steady MAGA base, and out-of-touch democrats. ] (]) 21:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	: That's fair. ] (]) 14:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
			:::That seems like it would fit better in the article on the election than in the article on Trump. ] (]) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I went ahead and removed the last sentence, but tweaked the rest. I think the main point here is that Trump has made the proposal territorial, and so that expands the previous position by making even some non-Muslims subject to the policy if they come from countries compromised by terrorism, whereas even Muslims would not be affected if they come from countries like Scotland that have not been compromised by terrorism.] (]) 18:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::~~Sorry,~~ ~~but~~ that ~~sounds~~ ~~like~~ ~~classic~~ ~~original~~ ~~research~~.] (]) 18:55, 20 ~~August~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		::::Why is that? This is information that is directly related to his career in politics. ] (]) 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Happy to provide sources of you can confirm that you will make the changes. Not sure who the gatekeeper is for what the world views on Misplaced Pages, but I hope is is not just one person. ] (]) 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::And when you add ''"because those countries have been compromised by terrorists whom they have allowed in, but he said Scotland has not done so and therefore Muslims from Scotland would not be banned"'' you've once again slipped Trump speak into Misplaced Pages voice. Which makes it POV. Trump, and his supporters might imagine that "those countries have been compromised by terrorists" (wtf that means) but that doesn't make it true.] (]) 19:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
			:::Not how things work here. You suggest a change or addition, which is supported by citation to a source. Discussion will then begin from there on whether or not to include it. ] (]) 00:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::The sentence now says (emphasis added): "'''He has stated''' that immigrants from France and Germany could face 'extreme vetting', because '''he says''' those countries have been compromised by terrorists who have been allowed in by those countries, but '''he said''' Scotland has not done so and therefore Muslims from Scotland would not be banned." Everything is attributed to Trump so Misplaced Pages is not engaging in any Trumpspeak.] (]) 19:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::~~:::Inaccurately~~ ~~attributed~~ to ~~Trump.~~ He ~~has~~ ~~never~~ ~~said~~ ~~"Scotland~~ ~~has~~ ~~not~~ ~~done~~ so ~~and~~ ~~therefore~~ ~~Muslims~~ ~~from~~ ~~Scotland~~ ~~would~~ ~~not~~ be ~~banned."~~ ~~That's~~ ~~putting~~ ~~words~~ in ~~his~~ ~~mouth~~. --] (]) 19:36, 20 ~~August~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		:::There isn't exactly a "gatekeeper for worldviews" on this site, you need sources for statements you want to induct into the article and like what other people said, no original research. ] (]) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:~~::::::To~~ ~~ensure~~ no ~~BLP~~ ~~violation,~~ I ~~have~~ ~~revised~~ ~~it to say this: "but said he would~~ not be ~~bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland."~~] (]) 19:46, 20 ~~August~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		:That kind of introduction is more fitting for Conservapedia, not Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{Ping\|NesserWiki}} ] is extremely ironic, it's not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, what the OP wrote started a discussion that perhaps could be useful (although I don't think it will be useful). ] (]) 01:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::I agree the new "tweaks" are original research and not supported by the sources. (], you really should have discussed those significant changes here where the paragraph is under discussion.) You added this sentence: <s>''"He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting" because those countries have been compromised by terrorists whom they have allowed in, but he said Scotland has not done so and therefore Muslims from Scotland would not be banned."''</s> <s>''"He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting", because he says those countries have been compromised by terrorists who have been allowed in by those countries, but he said Scotland has not done so and therefore Muslims from Scotland would not be banned."''</s> ''"He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting", because he says those countries have been compromised by terrorists who have been allowed in by those countries, but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland."'' I don't think Trump has ever spelled it out this way. Yes, he gave France and Germany as examples of countries needing "extreme vetting" "because of people they have allowed in," and I believe he mentioned Syria as an example of a country he wouldn't allow anyone from. But all he said about Scotland was that he would be OK with Muslims from Scotland; he didn't explain why; that's OR. Furthermore, his spokeswoman specifically did NOT confirm that Muslims from peaceful nations would be OK, or that only Muslims would be subject to the "territorial" test. And Trump has never made that clear either. I think this newly added sentence is not justified, precisely because his current policy is too murky to be spelled out clearly like this. I prefer the version we had - the version I quoted above, minus its last sentence as agreed - and I think Anything's new last sentence should be reverted. --] (]) 19:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	::. The title is quite clear: "Trump now says Muslim ban only applies to those from terrorism-heavy countries". Do you disagree that the article title correctly summarizes the article?] (]) 19:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::The source's headline is clear but inaccurate. The spokesperson they are quoting (not Trump himself, so that's error #1) actually said "Hicks said in an email that Trump's ban would now just apply to Muslims in terror states, but '''she would not confirm that the ban would not apply to non-Muslims from those countries or to Muslims living in peaceful countries'''." That's error #2. Not all headline writers get it right. This one didn't. --] (]) 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::I strongly disagree that the headline is inaccurate, and I suggest we resolve this issue before proceeding further. I will present detailed information to prove to you today that the headline is correct, but it will take some time.] (]) 20:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

			== Unjustified removal of Operation Warp Speed? ==
	::::: "''He didn't explain why.''" Correct. His ''son'' did.
	::::::: ERIC TRUMP, SON OF DONALD TRUMP. The difference between a Muslim faith coming from Scotland is you can actually vet them. I think my father's biggest point was ... if you have 200,000 Syrian refugees in this country, they don't have files... They are not in any kind of database.
	::::: Eric Trump, interview by Greta van Susteren, '''', June 27, 2016. --] (]) 19:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::....which is not the same as the reason Anything ascribed to Trump - that Scotland had not let in terrorists and therefore Scots would not be banned. --] (]) 19:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::Yes, it is essentially the same. Germany has allowed in a million un-vetted Syrians this year. Scotland has not. Therefore any Muslim immigrants from Scotland to the United States can be thoroughly vetted. Anyway, this is merely background information, and I'm not suggesting to put any if it in this article as of now.] (]) 20:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::Anyhow, not to get too bogged down in quibbles - I continue to think that this sentence should be removed, not only because it is inaccurate, but because it is TMI for this biographical article. Spell it out in that much detail at the Political positions article, not here. --] (]) 19:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::: From ]: "In the event that researched origins for the text are not produced after a relatively small passage of time (i.e., no more than a few days) ... it could be edited or otherwise removed from the article to comply with ]." Could you edit accordingly, ]?
	::::::::: Any material about Muslims coming from France, Germany, and Scotland does need to be directly followed by this explanation (otherwise the material would appear unhelpful or worse, being so readily susceptible to misinterpretation). --] (]) 20:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::: showing how I edited the article today. As you can see, the stuff about Germany and France was in there already, and I inserted an explanation (which seems to be what you're saying was needed). I also mentioned Scotland, because it would not be NPOV to only mention Germany and France. So, I deleted the last sentence per consensus above, but kept a mention of Scotland. I strongly feel that the article headline of the Jenna Johnson article in the Chicago Tribune is accurate, MelanieN disagrees, and I think we need to resolve that issue. Per Melanie's request at my talk page, I don't intend to edit this stuff again today, unless for BLP reasons.] (]) 20:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::::The headline incorrectly states that the new policy would apply '''"only"''' to those from terror-heavy countries. But the source for the article - the Trump spokesperson - refused to confirm the "only" part of that claim. In other words, the article text does not actually support the claim that it would "only" apply to those territories. So I want the word "only" removed from this sentence in the article: ''"Trump later changed his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply only to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism".'' Your recent revision has solved the OR/putting-words-in-his-mouth problem regarding Scotland, so the word "only" is my only remaining issue with your changes. And the larger question: should the sentence be there at all? I feel it should not. Looking for input and hopefully consensus on that question. --] (]) 21:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::I think the word "only" is correct, and the headline is correct, and will provide evidence of that later today.] (]) 22:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

			{{u\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} decided to mention of Operation Warp Speed from the page and said that the "last discussion" was "inconclusive". I'm a little confused here, given the ] they cited includes a number of editors agreeing that inclusion of OWS was warranted, but not much discussion about it at all.
	===Proposed Muslim ban now only applies to those from particular countries?===
	in the ''Chicago Tribune''. The headline says: "Trump now says Muslim ban only applies to those from terrorism-heavy countries". ] doubts that the source's headline is accurate, because the spokesperson quoted in the article would not later confirm that the ban would not apply to Muslims living in peaceful countries.<br />
	I think the headline is correct, for several reasons. The ''Chicago Tribune'' article and headline are repeated in '''', and other reliable sources. Also, Trump said that Muslim immigration from Scotland would not bother him, and Jenna Johnson properly drew the inference that he only wants to ban Muslims from countries with heavy terrorism. The June 25 WaPo article by Johnson reports (emphasis added):
	{{cquote\|Donald Trump has revised his proposed ban on foreign Muslims, with spokeswoman Hope Hicks saying Saturday that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee '''only wants to ban Muslims from countries with heavy terrorism.'''....During one of four stops along the 18-hole course, a reporter asked Trump if he would be okay with a Muslim from Scotland coming into the United States and '''he said it "wouldn't bother me."''' Afterward, Hicks said in an email that Trump's ban would now '''just''' apply to Muslims in terror states, but she would not '''confirm''' that the ban would not apply to non-Muslims from those countries or to Muslims living in peaceful countries. This '''firm new position''' is a dramatic deviation from those Trump took on Dec. 7....}}
	So, we have a statement from Trump, plus a statement from Hicks, albeit one that Hicks did not repeat. So the headline accurately captures what the article says.<br />
	Let's look now at other news reports that confirm that Jenna Johnson headline. a report from ''Fox News'' that included the transcript that the Jenna Johnson article used:
	{{cquote\|REPORTER: Yes. You said countries linked to Islamic terrorism would be blocked in terms of immigration.<br />
	DONALD TRUMP: Countries with great terrorism.<br />
	REPORTER: So would a Muslim coming from Scotland or Great Britain, have you tweaked your policy on that? So --<br />
	DONALD TRUMP: It wouldn't bother me.}}
	It seems like a perfectly valid inference by reporters that this means the ban (or "extreme vetting" or whatever) applies to countries with great terrorism, not countries like Scotland and Great Britain. Likewise, characterized Trump's remarks this way: "Trump is now softening his position, no longer supporting a ban on all Muslims coming to the U.S. just those from terror states, as long as they are vetted strongly." This yet again confirms the Jenna Johnson headline.] (]) 02:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::"Inference" is another name for "Original research". Or in this case, of reporters trying to draw conclusions from some very vague and contradictory statements, putting words in his mouth that he hasn't said. Nobody from the Trump campaign has said, firmly, that the ban would NOT apply to Muslims from peaceful countries - in fact the spokesperson refused to confirm that conclusion, even though she had just said it would "just" apply to Muslims from terror states. Trump said immigrants from Scotland "wouldn't bother him". He said it while he was IN Scotland, so it may have been just a courtesy. It's a long, long way from repealing his ban for all countries not on his "terror" list (which apparently he gets to define at his whim; putting France and Germany on the list, for instance, does not meet his original definition of "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies"). Anyhow, IMO the claim that he is now proposing to ban "only" Muslims from countries on his list is unproven, and I think the word "only" should be removed. --] (]) 03:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::So you think this BLP, including the lead, should directly contradict secondary sources including news reporters at the ], ], and ] because you think you understand the primary sources better than they do? I will have to disagree. Moreover, if that he supports a ban on Muslim immigration from countries compromised by terror, it's just silly to insist that he also supports such a ban for countries not compromised by terror.] (]) 04:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Conclusions and inference again. I will believe he has dropped the ban from countries not on his "terror list" when he says so. Anyhow, leaving out "only" doesn't contradict him; it simply leaves it up in the air, which is where he has left it. --] (]) 04:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::No, for us to say "Trump supports a temporary ban on Muslim immigration to the United States" strongly implies '''''all''''' Muslim immigration to the United States, which is directly contradicted by multiple secondary sources (not to mention on multiple occasions directly by Trump and his spokesperson that I've already linked to). He said Muslim immigration from Scotland and Great Britain "don't bother" him. He's said that his ban would apply to "countries with great terror" and "countries compromised by terror", and he's explained at great length why he thinks France and Germany compromised themselves by admitting a million unscreened Syrians. I adamantly oppose misleading Misplaced Pages readers by saying without qualification that Trump supports a temporary ban on foreign Muslims coming to the United States. That proposal itself was temporary, and both secondary sources and primary sources clearly show it has changed.] (]) 04:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::You have stated your position. I have stated mine. Time to hear from other people: should the word "only" be removed from the sentence ''"Trump later changed his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply only to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism"."'' or should it be retained? --] (]) 22:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::As of a few minutes ago, the lead was out of harmony with the body, so I fixed the lead (emphasis added): "Trump has also suggested temporarily banning foreign Muslims from entering the United States, '''which he later said would focus on those from countries with a 'proven history' of terrorism''', and he also advocated raising the level of vetting for immigration from those nations." This uses language that you proposed in on 17 July 23:26 (emphasis added), "His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to 'unfair' trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, and a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States ('''which he later said would focus on those from from terrorist countries''') until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots." I do believe that it was also a BLP violation for the lead to state a position which all reliable secondary sources contradict.] (]) 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::I think we need to stop trying to revise history of Trump's behalf. It's not an objective way to present this content. Trump's entire campaign has consisted of
	:::::::::#Trump makes an outrageous policy declaration
	:::::::::#Opprobrium ensues{{emdash}}Trump sinks in polls
	:::::::::#Trump and surrogates re-explain his comments, soften his meaning, and recast everything as if the original declarations never occurred
	:::::::::#Lather, rinse, repeat.
	:::::::::We should be presenting material chronologically, without adding equivocating phrases like "in the past", "which he later said ", and my favorite: "... his initial plan for a "total and complete", but temporary, ban on foreign Muslim" ← What does that even mean? - ]] 23:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}}As always, we ought to just follow the reliable sources. As to your question "what does that even mean", I suppose a total and complete and temporary ban would mean that absolutely no non-citizen Muslims would be allowed into the US for a period of time while a more permanent policy is formulated. That policy has since been modified to focus on countries with a proven history of terrorism.] (]) 23:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Yes, we should follow sources: NYT: "Donald J. Trump’s proposal to bar Muslim noncitizens from entering the United States, at least temporarily"; CNN" "they do not support his proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the U.S"; USN: "Trump's proposal to temporarily block Muslims from coming into the United States.".- ]] 00:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Are you denying that reliable secondary sources have reported that he has modified his approach to focus on particular countries instead of all countries? The sources are quoted above and at Archive 15. It's not my fault he modified his position. If he hadn't modified it, then I'd be 100% for saying the policy today is what he initially announced. I think Melanie is correct that the "focus" of the policy has changed, and he isn't bothered by Muslim immigration from some countries. You want us to just ignore that?] (]) 00:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::If you take a couple of words from each source, I suppose you could write Shakespeare, but ]. If he changes his policies, that's new information{{emdash}}not a reason to completely change the meaning of the material that already exists. On a similar note, the last sentence of the <u>Immigration policies</u> section include this bizarre construct: "...but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland." This is off-handed comment is not appropriate for an encyclopedic summary of Trump's immigration policies. - ]] 00:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::We cannot continue to say or imply that "Trump's position is X" if he has changed it to "Y". Regarding Scotland, on what basis have you determined that his statement was off-handed? He was answering a direct question from a national news network reporter, not overheard muttering to a friend. I don't see how it could be NPOV to mention Germany and France without mentioning his very different position with regard to Scotland. You want us to only mention Germany and France but not Scotland?] (]) 00:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Q:"Have you tweaked your policy on that also?"; A: "It wouldn't bother me." Great, but that wasn't the question. If his policy de jour is to allow Muslims from Anglo Saxon countries, then he should say so in a policy statement, then sources would say so, then we could add it to the article. We shouldn't be adding vague interview answers and misleading our readers into believing that Trump has minted a brand new immigration policy.- ]] 01:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::I know you would never deliberately mangle a primary source, so I'll just point out that the question (already quoted above) was this: "So would a Muslim coming from Scotland or Great Britain, have you tweaked your policy on that?" Fortunately, we don't have to rely on primary sources because plentiful secondary sources are available. Your remark about Anglo Saxon countries is your personal invention as well, as neither Trump nor any other sources have made such a distinction. The distinction he has made is between countries "compromised" by terrorism (i.e. having a "proven history" of terrorism) versus other countries. This BLP is about Trump, not MrX's personal caricature of Trump, though maybe you could try starting such article (good luck with that). Cheers.] (]) 01:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: Scotland's ''Celtic'', ].
	:::::: For nine centuries did we fight the cursed "''Anglo Saxons''"... --] (]) 02:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::Haha, I know. - ]] 02:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	This whole discussion, again, shows that it is senseless to discuss with pro-Trump-people. The deletion of the Trump-Phrase "terror states" (including threating the editor who put it in on his talk page) shows that many pro-Trump-editors here are trying to white-wash this article in every sentence. It is totally impossible to write some real facts about the narcissistic and irrational behaviour of Donald Trump, because the Pro-Trump-fraction will put all this in endless discussions on the talk page. Trump uses racist language "banning all muslims" and that is the fact. All the crazy wischy-waschy talk afterwards (immigrants from Germany and France will be "extremly vetted", but Scotland is okay), are pure deception, window-dressing the racist baseline which is clearly communicated by Trump and which is continuously kept out of this article for the reason of white-washing. This whole article is just a shame for everything what wants to be called an encyclopedia. --] (]) 02:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Dervorguilla, you wrote: "The deletion of the Trump-Phrase 'terror states' (including threating the editor who put it in on his talk page) shows that many pro-Trump-editors here are trying to white-wash this article in every sentence." I never objected to including the term "terror states". It's one of several descriptions that have been reported to explain which countries could not send Muslim migrants to the United States. Other descriptions are "countries compromised by terror" and "countries with a proven history of terrorism". The term "terror states" is fine for us to use, as long as further explanatory description is given, though maybe that explanatory description is enough without the term "terror states".] (]) 01:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Trump isn't the man for reasonable description. {{redacted}} --] (]) 01:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

			The discussion also seems irrelevant given multiple reliable sources are saying OWS was a trump accomplishment. If it's in an RS and ], I don't think it's sound to wipe stuff because of some vague mentions on an archived talk page?
	::::::::{{U\|Anythingyouwant}}: If nothing else, it seems like we agree that we should rely on sources. Can you please produce a couple of reliable sources that say "Trump's proposed immigration policy includes an exemption for Muslims from Scotland?- ]] 01:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::Making a late dinner right now for two. Will reply later.] (]) 01:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}}] asked: "Can you please produce a couple of reliable sources that say Trump's proposed immigration policy includes an exemption for Muslims from Scotland?" Yes, I can provide sources that specifically describe a Scotland exemption, plus sources that say Trump’s immigration policy includes an exemption for Muslims from any country that is not compromised by terrorism, or that has no proven history of terrorism, which of course would include a Scotland exemption:

			E.g. according to Vox: : {{tq\|"One of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration — and yes, there were accomplishments — was Operation Warp Speed, the public-private effort to rapidly develop Covid vaccines"}}
	*”During one of four stops along the 18-hole course, a reporter asked Trump if he would be okay with a Muslim from Scotland coming into the United States and he said it ‘wouldn't bother me.’”

			Per : {{tq\|"Operation Warp Speed, a Trump administration initiative to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines as fast as possible, should be lauded as a successful endeavour in what has otherwise been a poor effort to deal with the coronavirus, experts say"}}
	*"Donald Trump said today it "wouldn't bother me" if Scottish Muslims went to the United States — seeming to move away from the temporary ban on all foreign Muslims going to the United States that he has called for throughout his presidential campaign."

			says OWS was a Trump accomplishment, while also being clear that Trump was an anti-science president who sometimes hindered the pandemic response.
	*"When pressed by reporters for details on his national-security policies, Mr. Trump said he would block immigrants from 'countries with great terrorism.' Muslims from Scotland or other parts of Great Britain 'wouldn’t bother me,' he said."

			It probably deserves a brief mention in the lead as I put .
	*"Mr. Trump offered a slightly new formulation: The ban would be geographical, not religious, applying to 'areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies.' But not just any kind of terrorism, he clarified on Twitter two hours later: The ban was only for nations 'tied to Islamic terror.' Then ... last weekend, Mr. Trump said he would allow Muslims from allies like the United Kingdom to enter...."

			It would be great if other users could please weigh in.
	*”Donald Trump has revised his proposed ban on foreign Muslims, with spokeswoman Hope Hicks saying Saturday that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee only wants to ban Muslims from countries with heavy terrorism….”

			] (]) 23:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	*”Trump is now softening his position, no longer supporting a ban on all Muslims coming to the U.S. just those from terror states, as long as they are vetted strongly.”

			:It's probably worth a brief mention in the article body – like a sentence. A fuller treatment of the topic belongs in ], ], and obviously ]. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	*"the ban would be focused on "terrorist" countries, shifting from his previous proposal of 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.'"
			::{{tq\|"A brief mention – like a sentence"}}? If numerous reliable sources are calling this a major achievement with substantial discussion, a paragraph is more realistic. There are 12 entire paragraphs about COVID, some of it rather trivial in nature – but a single sentence for a multi-billion dollar policy implemented by a US president that has been praised by experts and sources? ] (]) 04:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:CNN seems to have agreed with you. "President Donald Trump finally has something legitimate to take credit for in his coronavirus response: A vaccine that appears poised to reach Americans in record time." ] (]) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks, that's a good source to use. ] (]) 04:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That CNN source, , and , don't support the laudatory text you proposed ({{tq\|The program has been characterized as one of Trump's most significant accomplishments by medical experts for enabling the development of effective vaccines in record time}}). They mention the 15 years of research and development of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology before the pandemic hit, Trump's interference and politicizing of the process, and his promise of many more doses by the end of 2020 than the goals set by the contracts with the vaccine manufacturers. ]] 20:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would support a brief, neutrally worded one-sentence mention of Operation Warp Speed. Further detail should be reserved for the respective pages covering that topic. ] (]) 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			'''Reincluded:''' I have the paragraph and small mention in lead. I also took a look at the Obama article, which includes mention of the ACA as his "most significant accomplishment" per the ], so I think if the reliable sources describe this as Trumps, that deserved a mention in body. ] (]) 04:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	*"His spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, told CNN Saturday that Trump supports barring only Muslims from 'terror states,' not all Muslims."
	] (]) 03:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::In the quotes provided at the beginning of the sub-section from , Trump was apparently responding to a question from a reporter who asked about Muslims from GB and Scotland specifically.

			:This is more than a mention in the body - it should be shortened. If there is a concern that some of the other COVID-related content is trivial, then condensing that would be a better approach. ] (]) 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	Currently the article reads:
			::Two sentences is hardly "more than a mention". The reliable sources describe this as a major achievement of his presidency and a major component of his COVID-19 response. Misplaced Pages reflects the RS. It seems some of the editors chiming in think "consensus" depends on opinion and a vote count. That is false. ] (]) 20:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{Talkquote\|....but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland.}}
			:::{{tq\|That is false.}} Is that a "My arguments are stronger, so I win" argument? ―] ] 21:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::No, consensus building is important. But it is also important that Misplaced Pages editors arguments are based in policy/guidelines/reasoning. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect ], and I haven't heard a good argument as to why restriction to a single sentence is appropriate, given the way OWS has been extensively covered in the reliable sources. ] (]) 21:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I'm just being practical, as that's how I roll. Based on my 11 years around here, a large part of it at this article, I'd generously estimate that one in four editors participating at this article actually meets that standard of collaborativeness (my mind doesn't change easily, so I wouldn't count myself as one of them). We can agree on ideals, but we still have to resolve issues. ―] ] 21:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:You didn't just reinsert the paragraph after six hours (see "Warning: active arbitration remedies" banner at the top of this talk page), you also added a clause to the lead. I've reverted. The discussion so far supports a brief, e.g., one-sentence mention in the body. Developing an effective vaccine was only part of it; research and development was well under way in several countries by the time of Trump's announcement. <s>Producing and delivering the</s> The production and delivery of a the Trump administration announced on May 15, 2020, was an unrealistic goal and . (Cue .) ]] 12:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::A full delete of the section seems to be more than what Nikkimaria asked for above, maybe to shorten that material which was just deleted by some percentage might be better than the full delete. ] (]) 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{u\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}}, I find this reasoning to restrict it to ''one sentence'' unjustified. Misplaced Pages reflects reliable sources. Consensus is made based upon validity of the argument per editing guidelines, and not because one editor ''thinks'' that this should be restricted to one sentence. Overriding and disputing the reliable sources seems like a major overstep. This is covered in the RS as a major component to the pandemic response, and a major achievement of his presidency.

			::And to clarify, I did not “reinsert the paragraph”, I wrote a new one. Second, the part in the lead was in my original . The lead summarizes his response to COVID, and this was a major component of that response.
	based on the sources, I think it would be more accurate to say:
	{{Talkquote\|.... but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from countries like Scotland.}}] (]) 03:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:]: No, that would not be accurate. To extrapolate "from Scotland" to claim he meant "from countries like Scotland" is Original Research and not supported by anything Trump actually said. The question he was asked, and answered, was specifically about "Scotland and the United Kingdom," and he refused to expand on his answer. When a reporter in Scotland asked a followup question to clarify Trump's "it wouldn't bother me" response, Trump '''walked away without answering.''' --] (]) 05:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	::The NY Times interpreted it like CFredkin: "Mr. Trump offered a slightly new formulation: The ban would be geographical, not religious, applying to 'areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies.' But not just any kind of terrorism, he clarified on Twitter two hours later: The ban was only for nations 'tied to Islamic terror.' Then ... last weekend, Mr. Trump said he would allow Muslims from allies '''like the United Kingdom''' to enter...."] (]) 05:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::The first two sentences in the second paragraph of ] already covers that. The additional text, "He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting", because he says those countries have been compromised by terrorists who have been allowed in by those countries, but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland." is not necessary and does not serve to enlighten our readers.- ]] 13:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

			::Can you actually cite me reasoning/guidelines/policy that would favour your interpretation of restricting coverage to a single sentence, given that multiple ] explicitly refer to this as his chief achievement?
	== Infobox image==
			::] (]) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	]
			:::I stand corrected. I hadn't noticed the text in the lead the first time around. Mention in the lead hasn't received any support in this discussion, and the rewritten text is no improvement on the first iteration. It's actually worse. The first sentence is based on a primary source (OWS); second sentence see . ]] 20:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	In my personal opinion I believe it's time that Trump's portrait be updated. The current photograph depicts him from August 2015, which was a year ago, and his head is slightly tilted. I feel that a more stable, straight and professional photograph should replace his portrait as well as on the ] page. There are several photos of him that are labeled for reuse because they're already on the Commons. Here was the best alternative I could find on the Commons.
			:::{{tq\|reasoning/guidelines/policy ... single sentence}} — not a question of guidelines or policy, it's where the consensus seems to be headed. Several editors in this discussion said they prefer a brief, short, or one-sentence mention, also neutral. ]] 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Regarding your comment above. Just because mRNA technology predates Trump isn't a reason for editors to make their ''own conclusions'' that OWS wasn't really an achievement at all. OWS may well have been imperfect, but multiple ] ''still'' describe it as his chief achievement. E.g. Vox quite recently .
			::::It would be appropriate to add a sentence to the end of the two sentence paragraph that I added, clarifying any of the critique of Trump regarding OWS, provided they are in ].
			::::In addition to the Vox source, the source did support: {{tq\|"Health experts broadly agree that the Trump administration’s national vaccine strategy was a success. The Trump administration was willing to invest in new vaccine technologies, foot the bill for large, expensive clinical studies and simultaneously pay for manufacturing vaccine candidates before it was clear they would prove effective and safe"}} ] (]) 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::You`re cherry picking a random quote ] (]) 21:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I highlighted '''multiple''' ] above which are clear that OWS was perhaps his sole accomplishment as president. I'm not going to argue with people who don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. Questioning multiple reliable sources is not appropriate. It's verifiable (]) and in multiple reliable sources. ] (]) 21:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::A handful of random quotes taken out of context ] (]) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Do you have any countervailing evidence, then? I haven't chimed in here because I wanted to see how this developed, but it seems Zenomonoz is arguing for RS and policy…the assertion that this should be arbitrarily restricted to one sentence (and the unhelpful removal in the meantime) doesn't improve the article.
			:::::::::<br>
			:::::::::How do biographical sources treat OWS? ] (]) 22:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::That would require an effort on my part..I agree..I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic and is now taking credit for ending it..as did reagan taking credit for the wall coming down ] (]) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::That's good. We should get into the nuances. ] (]) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{tq\|"I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic"}}, if you actually read the COVID-19 section you would know there is already extensive coverage of trump "dragging his feet". It's frustrating that users are chiming in to say we must restrict mention of a major program he implemented during the pandemic to a single sentence, despite its heavy coverage in multiple reliable sources. No reasoning provided. Quoting multiple RS sources is the opposite of "cherrypicking", by the way. ] (]) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I would also like to offer my agreement with @Zenomonoz that the listed references indicate notability of the bill itself and is representative of the most notable policy associated with his Presidency. It warrants some mention of inclusion as the references provided do appear to all validate its importance both nationally and with respect to his presidency. ] (]) 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Considering that the major source of the vaccine was Pfizer, which was never a part of Warp Speed, and an immigrant who got the Nobel Prize for ages of research behind the vaccine; but had to leave the country for lack of funds -- a very brief mention somewhere may be OK. But that's all. More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine. ] (]) 01:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq\|"More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine"}} – your reasoning does not seem relevant. Misplaced Pages reflects ], it isn't up to users to be making editorial decisions because they think it's an "insult" to people who worked on vaccines, or because of details surrounding the Pfizer vaccine. OWS funded numerous other vaccines, and scientific experts agree it was largely a success per the ]. A later pending appointment of RFK has zero bearing on OWS and what the sources said about OWS. ] (]) 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The precise quotation from Pfizer is now added to the ] article. ] (]) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks. An accurate documentation: ] (]) 02:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I rewrote one of the added sentences over there per the given source , "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." As it originally was added with "Experts disagreed", seemed to express more disagreement than the source presented and that there was a larger sample. Thanks. ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I just your rewrite for failing verification. CNN wrote: {{tq\|Three experts told CNN that this purchase promise '''may have played''' an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process.}} Your text: {{tq\|Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order "played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process"}}. I bolded the important words missing from your quote. The CNN article also mentions other uncertainties, such as Pfizer and BioNTech's purchase agreements with other countries. ]] 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Here again is my edit , which didn't change the quote that was there. I think what I had should be restored with the extra part "may have”, all of which is supported by the given source. In other words I think it should be like this, "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." Cheers, ] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::CNN asked four experts — selected on what basis out of how many? The purchase was contingent on the vaccine's FDA approval, so it was Pfizer/BioNTech taking the risk of paying for development, clinical trials, building the production facilities — seems they were fairly certain that they would succeed. ]] 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Space, we are not going to start questioning the reliability of sources like CNN, nor committing OR. I agree with Bob's proposal, and will insert the amended quote tomorrow. ] (]) 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Yes. A small paragraph about OWS is justified to go back in. It's covered extensively in reliable sources. Space (but mostly other users) have been questioning reliable sources ] and carrying out ] in the comments here. I received stern warnings for that when I was new to Misplaced Pages. This his all boils down to "what do the reliable sources say?". If there's extensive coverage in RS, it can be included. If users want to include RS mention of any criticism of Trump and OWS, that can be included too. Per the sources, OWS is a major part of the Trump admin COVID response. What do the reliable sources say? ] (]) 06:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I agree. I would also suggest that editors look at the rather large section and note what is currently there without OWS. Thanks. ] (]) 10:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			Within the context of how trump and his cronies handled the pandemic ] (]) 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			== New official portrait <span class="anchor" id="When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?"></span> ==
	I would like to generate consensus for this photo to replace the portrait. ] ] 21:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
			{{small\|Original heading: "When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?" ―] ] 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*'''No'''. He's looking away, frowning and it's not his best angle. Compare it to ]. We need a picture of Trump looking into/smiling at the camera, with a US flag in the background. Let us treat them as '''equals'''.] (]) 22:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	*'''No'''. In my opinion, the best we're going to get is ].] (]) 22:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	::]: Oh no, he's squinting on that one. That would be terrible. The one we have now is fine, except we need a smile and a US flag to make sure ]...] (]) 22:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|Zigzig20s}} No, we shouldn't compare the two when making articles for them. We only need an accurate and decent quality picture that represents the subject. --] - <sub>(])</sub><small>(please reply using ])</small> 03:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Sorry but they are both running for the same office and yes, we need to treat them equally and make sure one picture does not give either candidate an unfair advantage.] (]) 03:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Sure, they should be the same quality and all that, but we don't need to go on a manhunt for identical pictures for them. --] - <sub>(])</sub><small>(please reply using ])</small> 03:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::{{ping\|Zigzig20s}} Misplaced Pages strives to have ] articles, free from ], that are written from a ]. Trying to avoid giving either candidate an "unfair advantage" (however you happen to define either of those words) is not one of our primary goals.
	:::::If your main focus is on the electoral implications of our articles, maybe you should rethink why you are here and whether your goals align with those of this project. ] (]) 03:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::Please stop trying to discourage me from editing. Sure, the content needs to rely on reliable third-party sources. The pictures, however, need to treat both candidates equally.] (]) 03:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::I'm ''encouraging'' you to edit with the goals of this project in mind. I think there's a reason that you don't dispute that your interests are electoral in nature. It would be worth your while to consider whether that is actually reconcilable with the ]. ] (]) 03:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm encouraging you to stop assuming bad faith (or stop talking to me if you can't do that). I am only interested in improving content. My political opinions are irrelevant. Misplaced Pages editors are irrelevant; it's the content that matters. Please stop.] (]) 04:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::I made no reference to your holding any particular political opinion. I said that you were concerned about the electoral implications of Misplaced Pages articles. That is not an assumption on my part. You just stated "we need to treat them equally and make sure not give either candidate an unfair advantage." From that, one can infer that electoral implications are, at the very least, a factor that you are taking into account when making editorial decisions (at least with respect to photos).
	:::::::::As you can see, there was no need for assumptions (of good ''or'' bad faith) on my part in order to see that. I would appreciate not to be accused of "assuming bad faith" when I am but reading what you wrote just a few paragraphs above this one. ] (]) 04:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::They are both running for the same office. We have a responsiblity to treat them equally. I am not interested in going around in circles with you--please stop talking to me--I am busy with more important research at present.] (]) 04:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::We could work together on the history of organized labor at some point--as long as it's productive work and content-oriented--just not now--too busy.] (]) 04:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::: ]: I regret to have to tell you that ]'s complaints seem justified, at least to this editor. --] (]) 04:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::::No. We can't have DYKs for political candidates for example. We have a culture of treating political candidates equally. Sorry I must finish reading two academic articles right now, no time to go around in circles with you guys! Please respect my time.] (]) 05:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: I have to agree that you're right to do so (rather than go around in circles with us). --] (]) 06:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::{{ec}} No, to be honest, that one looks awful. And not because of Zigzig's reasons. ] (]) 22:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	* {{ec}} '''Oppose''' because of the angle, in part. ] (]) 22:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	*'''No'''. You need to convince people that this pic is better than the current one. -- ] (]) 23:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

			I don't believe there is a standard for this exact situation yet on here, given that Trump is only the second person to serve two non-consecutive terms as POTUS. Although, newer potraits tend be used over older ones on pages for other politicians. Overall, I'm curious as to what you all think should happen. ] (]) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	]
			:For infoboxes for politicians, Misplaced Pages uses the most recent official portrait. ―] ] 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	]
			:There is a precedent with Barack Obama. We use the most recent, second White House portrait which is closer to how he currently looks (salt-and-pepper rather than his earlier black hair). https://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/a-closer-look-at-obamas-new-official-presidential-portrait/ ] (]) 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	]
	UPDATE, here are several other photos. ] ] 00:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Response to update: All awful, except for number 2 perhaps, but the one we have at the moment is much better. Maybe the campaign will upload a better picture (smiling, looking into the camera, US flag in the background), but until then, let's refocus on more important things.] (]) 03:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:: Not yet, ]. Not yet. --] (]) 03:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' on top photo.
	: See : "Focus on uploading images that can ... illustrate the text of an article." Let's posit that the images at and well illustrate Trump in his capacities as (A) businessman and (B) nominee. What do those photos have in common?
	: 1. They're professional quality, not Twitter quality. They "enhance the subject's appearance with natural or artificial light". (See ''Occupational Outlook Handbook''.)
	: 2. Trump's head looks stable and straight, not mobile or tilted.
	: 3. His expression looks natural and self-assured, not posed or quizzical.
	: We can reasonably infer that the proposed image illustrates Trump best. The current image fails 1-3 and can be removed for being poorly representative. --] (]) 03:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC) 07:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::We really need him looking into the camera. The current picture is the best one to "illustrate the text of the article".] (]) 03:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::: The current picture shows him looking ''away from'' the camera, ]. Not "''into the camera.''"
	::: In addition, the photo appears in the Infobox, where the text describes Trump as both a "businessperson" and a "politician". Trump's business website shows him looking into the camera; his campaign website, away from the camera. We can show him either way. --] (]) 04:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	* Kek, that awkward moment that no one realizes that Image 1 actually gives him "" .--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 04:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	*'''None of the above'''. The proposed new picture is awful - looking up at him from below, emphasizing a saggy chin and lines on his face, and he is frowning. The other three proposed ones are not much better. The first has a twisted half smile, and his hair is doing something strange. The second is a frown. The third is a sappy, unnatural smile. None of them improve on the one currently in the article, which makes him look alert, curious, attentive, and natural. He is a guy who does not photograph well (in fact most pictures seem to show him with strange expressions on his face) but the photo currently in the article seems to have captured a rather sympathetic Trump. --] (]) 04:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:: Thank you for providing both your personal esthetic judgment and your reasons for that judgment, ]. (To me, however, the proposed photo makes him look like a leader set against some military, political, or business foe.)
	:: Yes, the current photo does capture a comparatively "''sympathetic Trump''". But that's my point, Melanie. None of the images at trump.com or donaldjtrump.com show him looking sympathetic.
	:: And almost none of the article text makes him ''sound'' sympathetic. (Cf. .)
	:: Moreover, not much of the body of reliable sources on the subject does either. Based on your comment, the current image fails ].
	:: If you have time, check out the pictures on Trump's websites. Two (of four) "''look up at him from below''". None show him looking even slightly "''curious''". Rather, they show him looking self-determined. The article text shows him in that light too, as do the majority of reliable sources.
	:: Wouldn't you agree that the proposed photo does as well? (But maybe we should take a second look at it tomorrow.) --] (]) 06:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Misplaced Pages editors should not actively try to make a political candidate look bad or unsympathetic. I can't believe I have to state the obvious. We are neutral. We wouldn't change Hillary's picture to her "What difference at this point, does it make" exasperated look. Ergo, Trump's current picture is fine as ] explained and if we can find a better one (smiling, US flag), we will.] (]) 06:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::: "An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." — ''']'''.
	:::: "''aspect'' ... is frequently used to indicate changes in the observer's point of view or specific compartmenting of his notions." "''aspect'' ... suggests a characteristic or habitual appearance, especially facial expression, but most commonly is applied to nonconcrete things." — ''Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary.''
	:::: BALASPS is policy and it applies to both text (in sense 1) and images (in senses 1 and 2). --] (]) 07:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Ridiculous; you are reading too much into our policy guidelines. But by your rationale, Trump is very patriotic (he wants to make '''America''' great again!), so we should definitely have a US flag in the background!] (]) 07:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: ] emphasizes the problem of ] (discussed in detail at ]). Trump has spent 50 years as a businessman, 2 as a politician. The background in his is gold, not red, white, or blue. --] (]) 07:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::Should we have a picture of Hillary in a Walmart boardroom? Anyway. I think we should tone down the nonsense. There is an election going on; we have to be responsible and treat both candidates equally. That's not recentist. It certainly would not be appropriate to use the infobox picture to belittle Trump or Hillary.] (]) 07:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::: It neither would be nor is. --] (]) 08:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Current infobox image''' is fine. {{U\|Zigzig20s}}, please let it go. You've stated your opinion numerous times now and the back and forth needs to stop. Enough, already. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 09:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::: I have just contacted the Trump campaign through email requesting a professional portrait (Mr. Trump smiling into the camera, US flag in background, good angle, good lighting). I have also asked for a portrait that I can use under CC-BY-SA 3.0. ] ] 10:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], you seen to be arguing that it would violate ] to show a "sympathetic" picture of Trump (by which I mean a picture that, if not exactly flattering, at least makes him look like a normal, decent human being). You argue against this because "almost none of the article text makes him ''sound'' sympathetic". The text is what it is; it contains quite a bit of well-sourced negative material; IMO it is appropriately balanced. That doesn't mean we have to seek out a picture that illustrates the worst aspects of his biography. The infobox picture is normally one that the subject him/herself might choose or be comfortable with; in the case of officials, it's almost always their official portrait. And it's not the only picture in the article. In addition to the infobox image there are nine other pictures of Trump in the article (three of him alone and six with other people). Surely that is a wide enough selection to provide "balance" so that we can allow a reasonably attractive picture in the inbox. --] (]) 18:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:: Hi ]! I'm arguing that we should show a picture that's analogous to the photos at trump.com and donaldjtrump.com. Those photos do "''make him look like a normal, decent human being''." I personally think they're "''reasonably attractive''". I didn't (and wouldn't) say they "''illustrate the worst aspects of his personality''". Nor, I think, does the proposed May 2015 photo, which I did and do support. --] (]) 19:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::: And are those pictures available per copyright status? If so, propose them here and let's talk about them. --] (]) 20:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::I think ]'s approach is very good.] (]) 20:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Maybe so, but i doubt his staff understand anything about 'creative commons' licenses...it will be a waste of time, I remember someone sending a similar requesting in February, did not get a reply...and also, if they do agree, then Catcher has to send the email and the image to OTRS before it can be used...just claiming that the Trump staff have approved a certain image for use is just not good enough..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 08:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::Could a NYC-based Wikipedian try to call them and upload the picture with them? I think that would be ideal.] (]) 08:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::]: Did you try to contact them through ? To be honest, I don't think they have the time to read those.] (]) 08:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::I sent an email today to ], seeking pic. We'll see.] (]) 08:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 05 January 2025 ==
	:::::: Trump's staff actually '''do''' "''understand ... about 'creative commons' licenses''", ]. And the photo on the left in the main section of "" is CC BY-SA 2.0.
			{{Edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}
	:::::: Credit: Gage Skidmore, photograph of Donald Trump at 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Md., March 15, 2013.
	:::::: Authority: Creative Commons. --] (]) 10:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::We need a smile and a flag though.] (]) 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::: Maybe not, ]. The infobox gives his primary occupation as "businessperson", not "politician". Per , the photo can illustrate him as a businessman. --] (]) 10:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::There's an election. We can't give an unfair advantage to Hillary with a smile and a flag. I'm sure we could look for arcane policy guidelines to make Trump look worse than Hillary and try to influence low-information voters subliminally, but we don't want to do that. I know you don't want to do that--I know you want to treat them as equals. Misplaced Pages should not be Animal Farm.] (]) 11:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	{{U\|Zigzig20s}}, your POV is showing. The only POV you should have -all editors here should have- is in the interest of Misplaced Pages as a neutral, encyclopedic entity. What's more, an infobox photo isn't going to influence anyone's vote. You're also now deep into ] territory. Cool it. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 15:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Zigzig, I have come to agree with what many others here have told you: your determination that the picture must include "a smile and a flag" has no consensus or support here. Please accept that no one else agrees that "a smile and a flag" are requirements for the infobox picture, or that Trump's picture must include the exact same elements as Clinton's for purposes of "equal treatment". You have not convinced anyone of this, and your continued insistence on it is approaching disruptive. Please ] and don't bring it up again. Thanks. --] (]) 18:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I actually think treating them as equals would be the most neutral thing to do. But I've made my point.] (]) 20:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::They are different people. At the risk of sounding snide, should she also have orange hair? There has been way too much discussion of photos on Trump-related articles. To use an ancient quote: "When you will make an end of it?" ] (]) 00:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

			<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->
	== Lead changes 23 August 2016 ==

	{{u\|CFredkin}}, wasn't a constructive revert. You reverted 7 of my changes all in one fell swoop, simply saying that the additions weren't sufficiently notable. Several of my changes weren't additions of content so notability has nothing to do with it. I broke my edit up into pieces and included an edit summary for each one specifically so that other editors could consider each part separately. Please self-revert the portions you don't have a problem with. As for notability, Trump's falsehoods and his birtherism have both received extremely heavy coverage in the news. Birtherism coverage was discussed above in the section titled "POV lead." --] (]) 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Looks to me like CFredkin carefully preserved all of your edits except those to the lead. True, your first edit to the lead did not introduce new material, but your second did, so maybe CFredkin could be faulted for reverting the first lead edit; personally, I don't think the reorganization in the first lead edit was needed.] (]) 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
	::: After looking more closely at the first edit to the lede, I agree that it was beneficial. I've restored that portion. Thanks.] (]) 22:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Was Trump a real birther or was he trying to get Obama to release his full birth certificate? I'm not 100% certain, but I thought I read somewhere awhile back that he questioned why the long form certificate had not been released, but acknowledged the Hawaii birth certificate. ] (]) 22:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::SW3, it would probably be best if you would look at the sources cited in this Misplaced Pages article on the matter, and also look at other reliable sources you can find, to get an answer to your question. Me giving you my own view would not be as useful as consulting sources that are more reliable than a mere Misplaced Pages editor (infallible though I am!).] (]) 22:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{u\|CFredkin}}, what about ? --] (]) 23:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::I have no problem with those three edits. It would have probably been simpler to make those edits before inserting the controversial stuff rather than after, but I don't see why those three edits cannot be restored. I do object to removal from the body of the article that the birther controversy was already "longstanding" when Trump got into it. The thing had been going on from 2008 to 2011, and instead we make it sound like Trump started the whole thing. Actually, he was pivotal in ending it; the whole controversy subsided greatly once the certificate was released. I believe that a firm consensus is needed to remove the longstanding description of the controversy as "longstanding". Regarding his statement about the grandmother, I likewise think that useful content was removed; we make it sound like he made up a story out of thin air but that's not so.] (]) 00:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::: I've restored these edits as well. Thanks.] (]) 01:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

			* '''What I think should be changed (format using {{tl\|textdiff}})''':{{TextDiff\|Post-presidency (2021-present)\|Time between the presidencies (2021-present)}}
	I did agree with CFredkin's removal of "false" (in Misplaced Pages's voice) from the lede, but I assumed Trump's frequent falsehoods were mentioned somewhere in the article - as they are at ]. To my surprise I don't find anything about that here. There needs to be at least a sentence about this somewhere in this article, since it is well documented. Likewise, I think there needs to be a sentence about the birtherism stuff - an issue which he revived long after it had died out, and which (according to some polls) more than half of Republicans now believe, thanks to him. --] (]) 23:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
			* '''Why it should be changed''':In 2024, an edit war was started on this article. I started a talk discussion which solved the problem and we solved it by using this name.
	:Is your concern about the importance of the falsehoods, or is it the use of "false" in Misplaced Pages's voice? Also, are you proposing that the birtherism remain in the lead section or just that it be included in the article? Because it does have a couple of sentences in "Involvement in politics, 1988–2015". --] (]) 23:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
			* '''References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button)''': (] - (redacted in favor of a simple wikilink. ] (]) 03:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC))
	::If birtherism is in the article (I missed it) then that's enough. Yes, my concern was with having "false" in the lead and in Misplaced Pages's voice. I believe there should be a sourced sentence or two about this in the body of the text somewhere. --] (]) 00:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::P.S. I agree that the birtherism paragraph needs not just the word "longstanding", it needs rewriting. This version makes it sound like something Trump was the first to come up with, when actually he just revived and re-publicized an old meme. --] (]) 00:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::To assert that the birther issue is "not notable" is ridiculous, particularly since it's closely related to Trump deciding to run for president .] (]) 02:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::: Right... particularly since he provided no indication that he was interested in running for President prior to 2011.] (]) 03:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:I'm splitting this out since we're getting all crossed up. This section is about the lead section. If we're going to talk about birtherism outside of the lead section, please start a new thread.

			] (]) 02:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== False ===
	Melanie, I'm sorry but I don't understand your concern about adding "false" to the lead section. Trump's many falsehoods have received enormous coverage by impeccable sources such as the ones I cited from Factcheck.org and PolitiFact. There are of course many more. "False" is not a subjective or loaded term; it's purely factual. --] (]) 03:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:It's factual and sourced, but it cannot be said in Misplaced Pages's voice. It should be said in the body of the article, with sources (Politifact would be the best one). --] (]) 04:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::{{u\|MelanieN\|Melanie}}, what policy or guideline are you relying on? Neutrality? I'm not aware of any sources saying Trump ''hasn't'' made many false statements during so campaign, so are you objecting to the language? Or undue emphasis? The fact that verifiable facts paint the subject of an article in a bad light doesn't make their inclusion non-neutral. Are you saying Trump's falsehoods haven't been one of the most noteworthy aspects of his campaign? --] (]) 17:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

			:Not sure how to format it other than what I did above, but there's no need to make this use reference tags like it is an article citation. ] (]) 03:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Here's another editor's concern, ]. Merely claiming the sources are "''impeccable''" doesn't make them so.
	::: "Begging the question -- that is, assuming as true the very claim that's disputed -- is a form of circular argument, divorced from reality." — Lunsford.
	: The reality: Factcheck.org and PolitiFact are flawed sources, not "''impeccable sources''". Also they're narrow-circulation sources, not mainstream (broad-circulation) sources. For more about RS publications see the ] essay.
	: Don't use either source to support contentious material anywhere in a BLP. --] (]) 04:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

			:Also, no. "Time between the presidencies" is clunky and wordy, and no one suggested that as a possibility in the line section above. This is not a proper use of an edit request. ] (]) 03:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Do PolitiFact and FactCheck.org fact-check every statement by the presidential candidates? If not, how do they decide what statements to fact-check? Is there some objective criteria? As far as I'm aware, these organizations don't take any systematic approach to selecting the statements to analyze. Given that, I think we have to be careful about extrapolating out any broader characterizations about the candidates based on an aggregation of their work.] (]) 04:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Are you guys kidding me? Do we need to go to RSN to confirm that PolitiFact and FactCheck.org widely considered two of the most reliable outlets that exist? Yes, they are impeccable and if either of you disagree then I'd love to hear what you think is more reliable. Name a reliable news outlet and there's a good chance they've reported on Trump's many falsehoods. --] (]) 05:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::: My statement above made no assertions regarding the reliability of those 2 sources.] (]) 05:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Not explicitly, but the sources say that Trump made many, many false statements and you are questioning the reliability of those assertions. --] (]) 06:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::: "''Are you guys kidding me?''" Answer: No, ], we're not. Neither of those outlets has enough paid circulation or advertising to hire high-quality journalists. See ] ("A bigger operation means more resources for fact-checking, a bigger reputation to uphold, and greater likelihood of employing top-tier people"). Their readership is just too small. --] (]) 06:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Well if we reach a standstill on this issue then I will take it to RSN, where I'd put money on the result. In any case, you didn't answer my question: can you give me an example of a news outlet you'd consider more reliable? --] (]) 16:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::: Whoa, wait a minute, ]. Our definition of Reliable Sources has nothing to do with paid circulation or advertising. Nothing! Some of the most UNreliable sources in the country have huge circulations and advertising. Our definition of a Reliable Source, per ], is "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (Note: WP:RS is an official guideline; RSVETTING is an essay. Read the notice at the top of that page about essays.) That certainly applies to PolitiFact and FactCheck.org. They take comments or assertions - that is, testable statements asserting facts - and compare them to the actual facts, and they use that to rate the truthfulness of the assertion. Their research is transparent, the facts they use for comparison are given, and their ratings are pretty much the standard for the truthfulness of political commentary. Politifact found Donald Trump to make so many false assertions that they couldn't even single one out for their "lie of the year" award for 2015; they awarded it to "The campaign misstatements of Donald Trump." This is what we are talking about when we say his untruthfulness is well documented. I still maintain it should not go unsourced into the lede; but it definitely needs to be in the body of the article, and I will try to come up with a suggested wording. --] (]) 16:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::Well said. However all along has been that it go ''sourced'' into the lede, not ''unsourced''. --] (]) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::I agree with this proposal because it doesn't affect the flow of the sentence as much. I agree with you on the sources, politifact and factcheck.org are both suitable. ~ ] ] 00:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	''Time'' and the ''Wall Street Journal'' have characterized PolitiFact as "'''spreading false impressions'''"<ref name="poniewozik">{{cite news \|last=Poniewozik \|first=James \|date=August 8, 2012 \|title=PolitiFact, Harry Reid's Pants, and the Limits of Fact-Checking \|url=http://entertainment.time.com/2012/08/08/politifact-harry-reids-pants-and-the-limits-of-fact-checking/ \|magazine=Time \|quote=If their rating system is sending false messages ... they’re doing exactly what they were founded to stop: using language to spread false impressions. }}</ref> and as "'''fundamentally dishonest'''" for calling their opinion pieces 'fact checks'<ref name="taranto">{{cite news \|last=Taranto \|first=James \|date=December 13, 2013 \|title=PolitiFact's Forked Tongue: The Site Once Vouched for Its 'Lie of the Year' \|url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303932504579256300070093302 \|newspaper=Wall Street Journal \|quote=PolitiFact.com ... is out with its ‘Lie of the Year’... In the past ... PolitiFact vouched for Lie... Exposing it conclusively as such would have required a degree of expertise few journalists have... Its past evaluations of the statement were ... merely opinion pieces... Selling opinion pieces by labeling them ‘fact checks’ is fundamentally dishonest. }}</ref><ref name="zurcher13">{{cite news \|last=Zurcher \|first=Anthony \|title=Obama's Healthcare 'Lie of the Year' \|work=BBC News \|date=December 16, 2013 \|url=http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-25407106 \|quote=James Taranto of the ''Wall Street Journal'' writes that the problem with PolitiFact ... is that they use editorial judgment, and bias, in determining what is and isn't the truth. }}</ref><ref name="wsj10dec">{{cite news \|date=December 23, 2010 \|title=Politifiction: True 'Lies' about Obamacare \|url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703886904576031630593433102 \|dead-url=no \|newspaper=Wall Street Journal \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20150201174133/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703886904576031630593433102 \|archive-date=2015-02-01 \|quote=PolitiFact ... has marketed itself to ... news organizations on the pretense of impartiality... PolitiFact's curators ... have political views and values that influence their judgments about ... who is right in any debate. }}</ref>.
	{{reflist}} ] policy says to be cautious about basing large passages on opinion pieces. --] (]) 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

	=== ~~Birtherism~~ ~~and~~ ~~2000~~ ~~Reform~~ ~~Party~~ ===		== Making this article fully protected ==
	I added the birther sentence to the lead section in part because I thought it was considerably more important than the sentence about Trump's 2000 flirtation with the Reform Party nomination. Thus, when I added the birther sentence it was a of the Reform Party sentence. Do people think the the birtherism was ''less'' biographically significant than the Reform Party stuff? If not can we please remove the Reform Party sentence? --] (]) 03:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::For sure, the 2000 presidential run was taking too much space in the lead so I boldly shortened it.] (]) 04:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:I do not think the source says "In 2011 repeatedly and publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship and eligibility to be President." At least that is not what he did. He questioned why Obama did not release his long form birth certificate, which Obama eventually did. ] (]) 03:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::.] (]) 03:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I'm fine with changing the language if it doesn't quite reflect the reliable sources. But, as both the body of this article and ] say, Trump did more than question why Obama didn't release the long form birth certificate. --] (]) 04:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Agreed. He didn't then let it go after the "long form" birth certificate was released in 2011. Even though Trump took credit for the long form birth certificate release, he didn't drop it. He continued pushing for more records in 2012. As recently as 2015 he said he "didn't know" if Obama was born in the U.S. or not, and "I don't know why he wouldn't release his records". It's Trump's pushing of this issue, both overtly and wink-wink, that has a majority of Republicans believing it. The birther thing is a signature issue for him. But it may not need to be in the lede of this biography; in the text is probably enough. Dr. Fleischman, why do you find it and the Reform Party issue mutually exclusive? Why can't they both be there? --] (]) 04:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::The Reform Party sentence sticks out like a sore thumb as being relatively non-noteworthy compared to both the birther stuff and the rest of the lead section material. Trump flirted with a presidential bid for 2012 in connection with his birther campaign, and I believe that got a lot more media attention. There's no reason why 2000 gets space in the lead and 2012 doesn't. --] (]) 05:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::As mentioned, I shortened that material in the lead today about the 2000 candidacy so it's now very concise: "He briefly ran for president in 2000 but withdrew before any votes were cast." My feeling is that actually announcing a candidacy for president is a major milestone in a person's life, right up there with the person's date of birth and full middle name. Doesn't the shortening of this sentence make it more acceptable? Before, it said: "He briefly sought the Reform Party's nomination in the 2000 presidential election but withdrew prior to any primary contests."] (]) 06:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::I concur with that change and believe it should remain in the lead. Including the ] (which was significant enough that we have an article about it) in the lede is entirely independent of where to mention birtherism; they are unrelated. --] (]) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::It's incorrect that Trump's pushing caused a majority of Republicans to doubt eligibility. shortly before Trump got involved. It cites a poll saying 58% of Republicans already had doubts about his citizenship and eligibility.] (]) 04:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

			when he is instated, there will be a wave of people (i think) that will try to edit it, and even bots. i find it necessary to make it fully protected (gold lock) ] (]) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::: The source above for 2015 indicates that he was responding to a question. The body of this article states that it was during a 6 week period in 2011 that he really pushed the issue. Compared to the things he's done in his career, and the things he's said in this presidential campaign (over a much longer period of time), I just don't see why this rises to the level of being ledeworthy.] (]) 05:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
			:Pages are not protected preemptively... - ] (]) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It's called ] ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::i know, but i think there will be a large vandalism wave, maybe one we cant actually control. over the next 4 years we will definitely see vandalism, which will be extremely annoying and tedious to defend against. ] (]) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::is there anything that actually is fully protected? ] (]) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Not in this life...I would prefer to see the page taken down completely for 24 hours than it freezing due to edit conflict but that`s censorship as well ] (]) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::ok ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. ―] ] 00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Donald trump is now president. ==
	Can we please just put DrFleischman's edit back? It's pretty clear that CFredkin is ] DS to make POV ] edits by removing any piece of text, no matter how relevant or well sourced and then running around repeating "don't restore! don't restore! discretionary sanctions! discretionary sanctions!". My good faith hath runneth out.] (]) 03:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:I can see how CFredkin's might suggest that, but it's important to assume good faith. --] (]) 04:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::After that edit, he self-reverted much of it, so I don't think his edits as a whole might suggest that.] (]) 04:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::No, but the bit about DS was unprovoked and unnecessary. --] (]) 05:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::: I think you're making an (incorrect) assumption that the reference to DS was directed at you or anyone in particular.] (]) 05:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::He did not self-revert the removal of the sentence ''"In 2011 he repeatedly and publicly ] ]'s citizenship and eligibility to be President. In June 2015, "'', which is the bone of contention here. He self-reverted some minor stuff instead.] (]) 05:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Well sure, removing new content in the lead does not necessarily have anything to do with "gaming the system". I agree with Melanie that having the birther stuff in the text is probably enough.] (]) 05:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	Here's a sentence that could go in both the body and lead:
	:: Trump has said that he "single-handedly forced President Obama to release his birth certificate" after failed efforts by Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton.<ref name="bbclongform">{{cite news \|title=Obama Releases 'Long Form' Birth Certificate \|url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13212230 \|work=BBC News \|date=April 27, 2011 \|quote=Mr Trump took credit for forcing Mr Obama's hand. ‘I've accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish,’ Mr Trump told reporters. ... ''Analysis By Mark Mardell'': As I talked to people afterwards, it was very clear many ... wondered why something hadn't been said more clearly much earlier. }}</ref><ref name="page">{{cite news \|last1=Page \|first1=Susan \|last2=Kucinich \|first2=Jackie \|date=April 28, 2011 \|title=Obama Releases Long-Form Birth Certificate \|url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-04-27-obama-birth-certificate_n.htm \|newspaper=USA Today \|quote=Trump ... bragged that he had ‘accomplished something that nobody else was able to accomplish’ in forcing the document's release. }}</ref><ref name="favole">{{cite news \|last1=Favole \|first1=Jared \|last2=Lee \|first2=Carol \|date=April 27, 2011 \|title=Obama Seeks to Quell ‘Birther’ Talk \|url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704187604576288811924282824 \|newspaper=Wall Street Journal \|quote=By releasing the fuller birth certificate, White House and Obama campaign officials were also hoping to take away ... Mr. Trump's megaphone... He claimed credit for the release. }}</ref><ref name="trumpbio">{{cite web \|url=http://www.trump.com/biography/ \|title=Donald Trump Biography \|date=2016 \|website=Trump.com \|publisher=The Trump Organization \|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20150828003415/http://www.trump.com/biography/ \|archivedate=August 28, 2015 \|deadurl=no \|quote=In 2011, after failed attempts by both Senator McCain and Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump single handedly forced President Obama to release his birth certificate... }}</ref>
	{{reflist}}
	Several other reputable sources are available, but 1-3 have the broadest circulations. --] (]) 06:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::No, we cannot say in Misplaced Pages's voice that Hillary Clinton wanted Obama to release his "long form" just because Trump says she did. More generally, let's keep this out of the lead, please. Trump's had lots of big or even bigger controversies (Judge Curiel, Mrs. Khan, Cruz's father, etc.).] (]) 07:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::I agree with AYW that Dervorguilla's proposal won't work--both on verifiability and importance grounds. However I disagree about comparing the birther thing to the campaign controversies. The birther campaign was more than a controversy, it was a sustained campaign that has drawn sustained media coverage ''for years'' and laid the foundation for his 2016 run. And the campaign controversies are already in the lead with the reference to Trump's many controversial statements during the campaign. --] (]) 16:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::: I would not object to saying something like "before and during the campaign". ] (]) 17:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

			Change from President-elect to President. ] (]) 18:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	I have proposed a partial rewrite of the "birther" paragraph in the "Involvement in politics, 1988–2015" section, see below. I think this paragraph is sufficient to cover the matter and it does not need to be in the lede (we can't possibly mention every controversial thing he has said in the lede). As for mentioning Hillary Clinton or John McCain in this context, as if to imply that they also had doubts about Obama's birth or citizenship, I absolutely oppose that. --] (]) 18:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:As I said, Trump's birtherism was more than just another controversial statement, it was a sustained campaign that laid the foundation for his 2016 run. --] (]) 18:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::This definitely should not be in the lede. It's a non-issue.] (]) 07:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

			:@] you have to wait 14 more days... ] ] 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Trump's claim about president's grandmother ==
			:has he been inaugurated? ] (]) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:No, he is not. His term will start at noon on the 20th. Just like Biden's started at noon on 20 January 2021. Just like Trump's previous term started at noon on 20 January 2017. --] (]) (]) 19:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:No he's not, wdym???? He'll be the president starting from Jan 20. There's still two weeks left ] (]) 11:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I find titles for Presidents and other politicians in Misplaced Pages articles to be inconsistent. For example in President Biden’s article, one can see President Barack Obama and former president Donald Trump in the article, and political titles should be used more.
			:The Twentieth Amendment uses the term, “President-elect,” as you are using here, yet Misplaced Pages in this article, and in the article, “President-elect,” uses “president-elect,” “President,” is not capitalized.
			:The fact is people were more formal when I was younger, a President had the title of President the rest of his life. ] (]) 10:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Reduce number of citations ==
	For a long time (more than a month) this article said "Trump's claim was based upon an incomplete transcript filed years earlier in a court case".

			This article, without a doubt, should be reduced its citations. 800+ is too much. There are a very few sentences without 2 or more citations. We don't need thousands of citations to prove something. What we need is a reliable source, that we can absolutely rely on, and I can say we can rely on each citation in this article. Where Trump starts his new presidential term, there would of course be a new section for that term, and there for sure be more than 200 citations at the end of that term, and later his post-presidency. This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. Plus, Trump is one of the most influential people in the U.S. and the world, which makes no doubt that there won't be any misinformation or what did not happen in this article, I mean we don't need 800+ citations, if not fixed the problem, by October 2025, 900 citations in this article. ] (]) 19:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	That was removed today by a bold edit without prior talk page discussion.

			:I do agree that we should delete excess citations, such as where two or three citations are used at the end of a sentence where one will do. – ] (]) 20:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	I objected at the talk page: "Regarding his statement about the grandmother, I likewise think that useful content was removed; we make it sound like he made up a story out of thin air but that's not so."
			:{{tq\| This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations.}} What does number of citations have to do with article length? Would you read every citation?{{pb}}While obvious OVERCITE should be avoided, I have no problem with the current number of citations and I think the hard PEIS limit should be the primary limiter. (See ].) ―] ] 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The article size is daunting also, its over 400Kb in size. If the article were reduced in size, then the number of cites could be significantly reduced as well. ] (]) 01:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Indictment Dismissal ==
	No one replied, so I restored the same basic material, though edited somewhat: "a claim that others had previously made based upon an incomplete court transcript of what the grandmother said."

			The last sentence in the lead currently says: "He faced more felony indictments related to his interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents, which were dismissed after his victory in the 2024 election." However, the classified documents case was dismissed by Aileen Cannon before the Nov election because she ruled Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. See AP article source: https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c. So, this sentence should be revised. Apparently, Jack Smith dropped his appeal of this ruling, but that does not change the fact that this case was dismissed last summer. ] (]) 02:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	This edit of mine was then reverted, and the material was removed, with edit summary "i don't see consensus on talk for restoring this text".

			==The late president's article==
	I have several objections to the last removal: (1) no one replied at the talk page when I said the material should be restored; (2) it's rarely appropriate to remove content with a bare assertion of "no consensus" without giving any substantive reason, see ]; (3) longstanding content like this requires a consensus for removal, not consensus for restoration per .] (]) 06:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
			Looking at the article for the late ], the Misplaced Pages article for him has a substantial section about his medical history as 'Personal life' and 'Health' which appears at the bottom of the article. The section at the Jimmy Carter article looks comprehensive and respectful. The Trump article, however, seems to put the Personal life section and Health section all the way near the top of the article which seems like an odd place to put this information. When I looked at the article for Washington, then the Personal life section is also put towards the bottom of the article. Should the 'Personal life' section and 'Health' for Trump be moved to the bottom of the article as seems to be the standard practice for Misplaced Pages president articles such as Washington and Carter? ] (]) 16:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Is this addressed to me or is it about one of CFredkin's edits? ] (]) 06:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I don't think CFredkin was involved in this. My objection is to .] (]) 06:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:I removed that sentence because it added too much detail with no biographical value. The point is that Trump's statement about Obama's grandmother was wrong. There is no benefit to describing in depth how this fallacy arose before Trump repeated it. --] (]) 16:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Do you think there is value in saying that he repeated it instead of made it up himself?] (]) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::The article neither says nor implies that Trump made it up himself. There would be more value in saying that the falsehood was long before Trump repeated it. --] (]) 17:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::: something like that might work. ] (]) 17:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

			:Interesting point, My only input is that it might have to do with the weight the information holds in contrast to the rest of the content in the article? Is there any MOS format that suggests that personal life/health might be better located at the bottom of an article? ] (]) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Proposed rewrite===
			::Part of the problem maybe that Carter was kind of a notable politician who happened to also be a businessman, whereas Trump was a notable businessman who (or maybe a celebrity) who happened to become a pelican. So the article grew organically. ] (]) 17:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	I propose a partial rewrite of that section, as below. I have simply left out the stuff about his grandmother as TMI (Trump didn't invent that anyhow, he was just repeating conspiracy-buff claims). I added his often-touted claim that he "sent investigators to Hawaii". And in addition to "he rarely mentioned it again" I believe we should add that when he is asked about it, he defends raising the issue to this day. Here is my proposal to replace the current "birther" paragraph which is in the "Involvement in politics, 1988–2015" section of this article. Comments? --] (]) 18:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
			:::Autocorrect or some kind of avian easteregg? ] (]) 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::One was created from the off as about a politician, one grew into one about a politician. ] (]) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::"pelican"? ] (]) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It looks like Slatersteven was trying to type "politician" rather than 'pelikan', which he can edit into his comment if he wants to. I'm also finding that the president's article for ] also has Personal life section which appears near the end of the article, as opposed to the Trump article which for some reason has put it at the top of the article. The Misplaced Pages preference for Washington, Jimmy Carter, and now John Quincy Adams, see to all be placing the Personal life section towards the end of the article. Should the Trump article be consistent with the other president articles on Misplaced Pages and place the Personal life section towards the end of the article? ] (]) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I don't see why not. Most people probably don't come to this page to read about DJT's schooling. ] (]) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2025 ==
	:For six weeks starting in March 2011, Trump publicly questioned ]'s citizenship, reviving the longstanding ] about Obama's eligibility to serve as president.<ref name=NYT2016>{{cite news \|last1=Parker \|first1=Ashley \|last2=Eder \|first2=Steve \|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/donald-trump-birther-obama.html \|title=Inside the Six Weeks Donald Trump Was a Nonstop 'Birther' \|newspaper=] \|date=July 2, 2016}}</ref> He repeatedly demanded that Obama show his birth certificate (Obama had already released his birth certificate in 2008, but "birthers" demanded a more detailed document called the "long form birth certificate") and said "I'm starting to think that he was not born here."<ref name=NYT2016/><ref>{{cite news \|url=http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/25/trump-claims-obama-birth-certificate-missing/ \|title=Trump claims Obama birth certificate 'missing' \|date=April 25, 2011 \|publisher=CNN \|accessdate=May 14, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news \|title=Birtherism: Where It All Began \|url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53563_Page3.html \|work=] \|date=April 22, 2011 \|accessdate=April 25, 2011}}</ref> Trump also claimed to have sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to research the question, saying "They cannot believe what they are finding"; however, there is no evidence that he actually sent representatives to Hawaii.<ref name = "NYT2016"/><ref>{{cite news\|url=http://www.salon.com/2011/04/08/trump_hawaii_investigators/\|title=Did Trump really send investigators to Hawaii?\|last=Elliott\|first=Justin\|date=April 8, 2016\|work=Salon\|accessdate=24 August 2016}}</ref> In April 2011, the ] sought to put the longstanding matter to rest by releasing the long form birth certificate.<ref>.'']'' (April 27, 2011): "the document whose absence has long been at the heart of the conspiracy-riddled discussion...."</ref> Trump took credit for getting the document released and said he hoped it "checks out".<ref name=Madison27April>{{cite news \|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-takes-credit-for-obama-birth-certificate-release-but-wonders-is-it-real/ \|title=Trump takes credit for Obama birth certificate release, but wonders 'is it real?' \|first=Lucy \|last=Madison \|publisher=CBS News \|date=April 27, 2011 \|accessdate=May 9, 2011}}</ref> He rarely mentioned the matter again, although he continued to defend his pursuit of the issue when asked.<ref name="NYT2016" /> In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular."<ref>{{cite news\|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-history-raising-birther-questions-president-obama/story?id=33861832\|title=Donald Trump's History of Raising Birther Questions About President Obama\|last=Keneally\|first=Meghan\|date=September 18, 2015\|work=ABC News\|accessdate=24 August 2016}}</ref> When asked in 2015 where Obama was born, Trump said, "I really don't know. I mean, I don't know why he wouldn't release his records. But you know, honestly, I don't want to get into it".<ref name=Lee9July>{{cite news \|url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/politics/donald-trump-illegal-immigrant-workers/ \|title=Trump says he still doesn't know where Obama was born \|date=July 9, 2015 \|accessdate=August 18, 2015 \|first=MJ \|last=Lee \|publisher=CNN}}</ref><ref>, ''Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees'' (July 9, 2015).</ref> Trump has also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his ] schools, and called for release of school records.<ref>Madison, Lisa (April 26, 2011).. CBS News.</ref>

			{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=no}}
	{{talkref}}
	~~:It~~ ~~could~~ ~~use~~ ~~some~~ ~~tweaks~~ ~~here~~ ~~and~~ ~~there,~~ ~~but~~ ~~overall~~ ~~it's a major improvement so I support implementing this now and we can make further edits later~~. --] (]) 18:22, 24 ~~August~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		Update inflation dollar amounts under the "wealth" section i.e money received. ] (]) 03:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I'll give it until tomorrow. --] (]) 00:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|Dervorguilla\|MrX}} I see that you have both been tweaking this paragraph in the article. Would you be OK with replacing it with this version? --] (]) 03:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:31, 9 January 2025

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.

Article policies

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, 186Auto-archiving period: 7 days

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.

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.

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.

Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Misplaced Pages articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.

Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

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 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.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Want to add new information about Donald Trump?
Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:

... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention x. Why won't you fix it? A1: Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Misplaced Pages's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Q2: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other? A2: Misplaced Pages is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's consensus building processes, especial since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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).

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal 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.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal 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.

Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City High‑importance

	New York City portal 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.

Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance

	Politics portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).

Television: American Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American television task force.

United States: Television / Presidential elections / Government Top‑importance

	United States portal 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.
	Television portal 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 U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

United States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents 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.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania 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.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Top‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Page history

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 17, 2016	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 25, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 2, 2018	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 15, 2019	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 31, 2019	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 29, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

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 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 3, 2018). "Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge.
Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone". Slate.
Pasternack, Alex (March 7, 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company.
Flood, Brian (May 21, 2020). "Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News.
Evon, Dan (November 19, 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Misplaced Pages Page?". Snopes.
Williams, Zoe (October 23, 2023). "Why is Elon Musk attacking Misplaced Pages? Because its very existence offends him". The Guardian.
Hays, Gabriel (May 31, 2024). "CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Misplaced Pages page". Fox News.
Harrison, Stephen (June 4, 2024). "The Most Heated Debate on Trump's Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Misplaced Pages?". Slate.
Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv (October 17, 2024). "Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research". The Boston Globe.

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 233 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 137 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Skip to table of contents

Other talk page banners

Section sizes

Section size for Donald Trump (88 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	9,347	9,347
Early life and education	3,497	3,497
Personal life	19	5,044
Family	1,340	1,340
Health	3,685	3,685
Business career	149	35,730
Real estate	4,555	15,954
Manhattan and Chicago developments	6,168	6,168
Atlantic City casinos	3,610	3,610
Clubs	1,621	1,621
Licensing the Trump name	1,364	1,364
Side ventures	7,287	7,287
Foundation	5,025	5,025
Legal affairs and bankruptcies	2,315	2,315
Wealth	3,636	3,636
Media career	3,452	5,107
The Apprentice and the Celebrity Apprentice	1,655	1,655
Early political aspirations	4,690	4,690
2016 presidential election	18,430	18,430
First presidency (2017–2021)	633	177,228
Early actions	2,728	2,728
Conflicts of interest	3,367	3,367
Domestic policy	21,318	21,318
Race relations	6,232	6,232
Pardons and commutations	2,574	2,574
Immigration	3,086	20,394
Travel ban	4,347	4,347
Family separation at the border	6,269	6,269
Mexico–United States border wall and government shutdown	6,692	6,692
Foreign policy	2,859	35,965
Trade	2,517	2,517
Russia	4,221	4,221
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	31,456
Initial response	7,681	7,681
White House Coronavirus Task Force	5,253	5,253
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	2,666	2,666
Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign	2,403	2,403
Investigations	1,079	26,084
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	12,830	12,830
First impeachment	10,200	10,200
Second impeachment	3,398	3,398
2020 presidential election	34	24,158
Loss to Biden	6,902	15,669
Rejection of results	8,767	8,767
January 6 Capitol attack	8,455	8,455
First post-presidency (2021–2025)	5,018	34,695
Business activities	2,382	2,382
Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits	630	27,295
FBI investigations	5,703	5,703
Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee	693	693
State criminal indictments	2,969	2,969
Federal criminal indictments	5,378	5,378
Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case	6,135	6,135
Civil judgments	5,787	5,787
2024 presidential election	15,072	15,072
Political practice and rhetoric	8,048	47,246
Racial and gender views	9,377	9,377
Link to hate crimes	4,730	4,730
Conspiracy theories	3,318	3,318
Truthfulness	10,483	10,483
Social media	5,810	5,810
Relationship with the press	5,480	5,480
Assessments	18	6,969
Public image	4,525	4,525
Scholarly	2,426	2,426
Notes	136	136
References	30	30
Works cited	18	11,906
Books	3,256	3,256
Journals	8,632	8,632
External links	5,431	5,431
Total	404,716	404,716

Current consensus

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)

04. Superseded by #15 Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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)

07. Superseded by #35 Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019) 08. Superseded by unlisted consensus Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

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)

10. Canceled Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024) 11. Superseded by #17 The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017) 16. Superseded by lead rewrite Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017) 17. Superseded by #50 Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021) 18. Superseded by #63 The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020) 19. Obsolete Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017) 20. Superseded by unlisted consensus Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies ~~have~~ sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018, superseded December 2024) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.) 21. Superseded by #39 Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

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)

23. Superseded by #52 The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018). 24. Superseded by #30 Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

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)

35. Superseded by #49 Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: 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. (RfC Feb 2019) 36. Superseded by #39 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. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

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 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)

45. Superseded by #48 There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 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:

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

Racially charged

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Hello all, I see Consensus #30, based particularly on this Request for Comment says: "The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."" I can also see that this is the only mention of "racially charged" in the article. Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

~~What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)~~ I understand. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. Riposte97 (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97 I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could WP:FIXIT? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.

Given it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems consistent with WP:NEWSORG. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave, apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. Riposte97 (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep definitely. 92.30.105.204 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have created a page User:Rollinginhisgrave/Trump racism descriptor as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in Racial views of Donald Trump as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.

This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for WP:WEIGHT, we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

SusanLesch Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in User:Rollinginhisgrave/sandbox_2. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per MOS:LEADNO, not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text, however this statement absolutely should be cited per MOS:CITELEAD. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support removal. "Racially charged" is nothing but a euphemism for "racist". When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in Wikivoice. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — Goszei (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

it needs removing for sure. it's against WP:Biographies_of_living_persons on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ Smellymoo 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced in Donald Trump#Views. A citation should be added to the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — Goszei (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
This comment is going over my head. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Tracking lead size

Word counts by paragraph and total.

05 Nov 2024 — 614 = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121

12 Nov 2024 — 657 = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43

19 Nov 2024 — 418 = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127

26 Nov 2024 — 406 = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142 03 Dec 2024 — 418 = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143

10 Dec 2024 — 413 = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

17 Dec 2024 — 422 = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166

24 Dec 2024 — 437 = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166

31 Dec 2024 — 465 = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164 07 Jan 2025 — 438 = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164

Tracking article size

Readable prose size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the PEIS limit.

05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103

12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 427,790 – 046

19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 430,095 – 012

26 Nov 2024 — 15,376 – 414,196 – 067 03 Dec 2024 — 15,479 – 415,176 – 064

10 Dec 2024 — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

17 Dec 2024 — 15,294 – 405,370 – 080

24 Dec 2024 — 14,863 – 402,971 – 190

31 Dec 2024 — 14,989 – 409,188 – 180 07 Jan 2025 — 14,681 – 404,773 – 187

Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

NO CONSENSUS In this discussion, the community discusses what if anything to say about Mr Trump's age and health. Although the question at this RfC is clear and specific, some of the answers relate to slightly different points. Overall, this RfC reaches no consensus.Q: What's the scope of this discussion?
A: Whether to add a section to the article about the media speculation about Trump's age and health.Q: What's the effect of a "no consensus" close?
A: "No consensus" means the status quo ante continues. There isn't a section on the media speculation about Donald Trump's age and health, and no such section should be created in his top-level article.Q: How does this affect current consensus item #39, which reads "Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office"?
A: Per WP:CCC, historic consensuses are superseded by current ones. However, this RfC related to a section, and the previous RfC related to a paragraph, and therefore the previous decision, i.e. that a paragraph about Trump's mental health or mental fitness may not be added, remains undisturbed.Q: Does that mean we can add something about media speculation about Trump's age and health that isn't a section or paragraph?
A: This RfC has not decided that.Q: Is it ok to say or imply that Donald Trump has any kind of age-related cognitive decline?
A: This is a biography of a living person, and such a claim would be "likely to be challenged" within the meaning of WP:V. Therefore no such claim can be made in Misplaced Pages's voice without an inline citation to a medically reliable source.I hope that this is clear and is sufficient to resolve the dispute. Queries, comments, and complaints about this close are welcome and should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 16:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Uninvolved closure requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

OK. Here's my proposal: that a section be added that reports the public discussion of concerns about his health, which are now a major part of public discourse. It should obviously not itself speculate on Trump's mental fitness, only report on the comments of WP:RS according to the WP:NPOV guidelines. This would not violate WP:MEDRS, because it would not express an opinion on his mental state, only report on the opinions of others. Opinions, please? — The Anome (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

A consensus/new consensus can be established without an RfC. You've already started the discussion on this page. Opening an RfC at this point would be improper, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If you insist on going that route, this is the procedure: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to start off: support as proposer, per comments above. — The Anome (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Anome, I suggest you notify the talk page of the article from which your proposed content originated. That page is 6 years old, so the editors there are likely knowledgeable. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Best 'not' to hand out such a notification at another talkpage, Anome. Less that be construed as canvassing for support. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No, it is media speculation, not a clinical diagnosis, and this is a BLP. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
yes it is time, esp after the 39 minute dance this week the topic has received quite a bit of coverage. whether it is a 'diagnosis' or not is not an issue, a encyclopedia is not drawing a medically-based conclusion it is just reflecting the preponderance of the sources. ValarianB (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No. You are attempting to create a false narrative. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

No or at best, very limited yes. I know we don't cite other wiki pages. But just for comparison, the Joe Biden main page only gives it about a vague sentence or two, and that's for a figure who's cognitive decline has been much more prominent and widely discussed by RS. Also, that section is titled much more neutrally simply as "Age and health." So overall, this is a "no" unless significantly scaled back. Just10A (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No It looks like they are not sincere age and health concerns but political attacks with no consensus of medical professionals. In the last stages of an election campaign, I think it's just part of an expected full court press. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
That's a straw man. The topic is concerns, which have been found NOTABLE on the abundantly sourced wiki page from which the recent content and deletion originated. If it were a medical diagnosis, the lead of this page would simply state "Donald Trump is the demented former POTUS and the demented candidate for 2024." But it isn't a diagnosis and nobody's suggested it is. There should not be a formal poll of any sort here. It's already under discussion and @GoodDay: has provided no policy or content-based rationale not to include this summary of a relevant article, similar to many others on this page. Lacking any such rationale, the removal appears meddlesome and destructive. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting editors who oppose the addition, are disruptive? GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

SPECIFICO was topic banned from Donald Trump a couple of months ago and their above comment was given as the last example of why. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No - as he hasn't been diagnosed with having any such medical issues. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No - We are not going to use non-MEDRS soucres to speculated on someone's mental or physical health. We wouldn't do it with Joe or anyone else. It's also laughable un-encyclopedic. Also it should probably be an RFC to overturn two RFCs and a bunch of previous discussions that all found the same thing. PackMecEng (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe . DN (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Ugh, well we shouldn't. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a way to "unring" that bell. DN (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Not to point fingers or drag this out even further (see below), but ~~this~~ (correction, see comment by Just10A above) seems to be where comparisons to the Biden article actually started. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes See Joe Biden#2024 presidential campaign. "After the debate raised questions about his health and age, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets". I understand BLP's require extra care, but "concern" doesn't seem to be weasely enough, as long as it's attributed in a verifiable context outside of VOICE. If the same rules that apply to Biden also apply to Trump, "Refuses to release medical records" with "attributed concerns" is where the bar currently sits. See "More than 230 doctors and health care providers, most of whom are backing Vice President Kamala Harris, call on Trump to release medical records" ABC NYT, Independent, CBS. Also see Age and health concerns about Donald Trump Cheers. DN (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
And Biden did step down, is there any indication of similar pressure on Trump from within the GOP? Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
It's not a qualifier as far as I know. Was the "raised questions about Biden's health" only allowed to be added AFTER he stepped down? Cheers. DN (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Well I recall making the same arguments there as here, and it all changed when it actually had an impact on the election. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Let's look at the tape. Looks like concerns about Biden's health were added on the 4th of July "After the debate raised questions about his health, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets" and Biden didn't resign until July 21st. Did I miss something? DN (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
NO, but I did, as I had opposed that in the past, and did not see the addition. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I can see wanting to err on the side of caution, but the cat is out of the bag and fairness is the name of the game, and other such idioms... DN (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
So we could say then "After a series of rallies raised questions about his health, Trump faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Republicana and the editorial boards of several major news outlets", would this be supported by RS? Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
AFAIK There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar. Only that it must be based on what the sources say. DN (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
1.) Do not substantively edit your comments after editors have already replied to them without indicating it. That is against guidelines.

2.) I don't know how you can argue "There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar" when just above that you argued "Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe" and "fairness is the name of the game."

I agree that policy doesn't mandate they match, but you gotta pick a side. You can't argue "Policy says they don't need to be similar" and then simultaneously say "They gotta similar or else it's unfair." Just10A (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
@Just10A If I acted improperly I apologize, as it wasn't my intent to mislead anyone, hence the clarification. I wasn't aware adding afaik is considered a substantive change.

I believe my yes vote implies that I have picked a side. TMK I'm allowed to make observations and express views on the appearance of possible inconsistencies in the application of policy in good faith. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No problem. I was referring to you adding the ABC source in your earlier comment though just to be clear. I agree that adding AFAIK is more minor. Just10A (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, then I was way off on what I thought you were referring to. I was about to start adding TMK and AFAIK to all of my sentences. I meant to add the ABC source in my original edit, but I goofed. Truly sorry if that screwed something up, I've had similar experiences so I empathize. DN (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Just10A I would briefly add that, TMK the application of policy and the substance of the context being proposed do not represent two conflicting interpretations of the same policies AFAIK. DN (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

True, but it also means they are not the same situation, which was my point, that they are not analogous. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd like to see someone confirm what sort of secondary coverage is here, but WP:MEDRS is irrelevant here because biographical information is not biomedical information: we should almost never include things like how a disease works or how it is diagnosed (except insofar to mention the subject isn't, when that's the case) on a biographical article in the first place. That is not to say we should not ask for the absolute best quality sources, but MEDRS is an inappropriate guideline here. Also, discussion on this topic will also need to consider how and where primary sources are used on the subarticle. Due weight concerns don't go away simply because the content happens to be on another article, and not mentioning something we have an entire subarticle on even once in the main article is close to essentially forcing the subarticle to be a POV fork, an outcome I'd expect neither those supporting nor opposing inclusion should want. Alpha3031 (t • c) 22:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I also don't see how WP:MEDRS (identifying reliable third-party published secondary sources accurately reflecting current knowledge on biomedical information (information relating to or could reasonably be perceived as relating to human health)) applies. If a majority of reliable sources describes the candidate's speech as increasingly incoherent and his behavior as increasingly bizarre, it's not a medical diagnosis. Consensus 39: This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No. This is still a BLP. Riposte97 (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment For anyone interested in additional details about "Age and health concerns about Joe Biden" being added to the LEAD of Joe Biden's BLP, they appeared about nine days before he bowed out of the 2024 presidential race. It made it onto the LEAD on July 12, . On the 18th a CFN tag was added , then removed , then re-added and removed again on the 19th , back on the 20th , removed same day , then again re-added by FMSky on the 20th , then removed again same day , re-added same day , and finally within the next 8-24 hours he dropped out . Cheers. DN (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify 2 more things then I'm outta here. First, I goofed again when I pinged FMSky, total brain fart that might be perceived as intentional CANVAS or sabotage, I'm just tired from editing all day and got distracted putting diffs together. It's no excuse it's just being honest, you can check my contribs. I doubt they would agree with my vote anyway. Second, I'm not saying this is a good reason to do the same thing here, I just think it's relevant somehow. Sorry if I screwed up, it wont happen again (here at least). Cheers. DN (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Include. In the last 5-14 days since Harris released her "excellent health" report, there has been renewed coverage in RS about Trump's refusal to release his medical records and the recent town hall that was even beyond the usual performance standard. Even after Biden it was mentioned Andre🚐 05:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Sources
"Harris releases a health report, shifting the focus to Trump's age and health concerns". The Economic Times. 2024-10-12. ISSN 0013-0389. Retrieved 2024-10-17. News, A. B. C. "Trump would be the oldest person to become president. He's not sharing health details". ABC News. Retrieved 2024-10-17. `{{cite web}}`: `\|last=` has generic name (help)

"Harris releases a health report, shifting the focus to Trump's age and health concerns". The Economic Times. 2024-10-12. ISSN 0013-0389. Retrieved 2024-10-17.
News, A. B. C. "Trump would be the oldest person to become president. He's not sharing health details". ABC News. Retrieved 2024-10-17. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

Yes, there is polling and Trump hasn't disclosed his medical records.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. People say that it should not be included because there is no MEDRS-level source that lists Trump's health. However, this did not stop concerns about Biden's health being added to the Joe Biden page, nor did it stop the creation of the Age and health concerns about Joe Biden Misplaced Pages page. There is also an Age and health concerns about Donald Trump page. Misplaced Pages is governed by the consensus of reliable sources, and multiple reliable sources have brought up this topic to the extent that an entire individual page on the wiki exists to cover it, thus the content is WP:DUE. To not at least mention it on this page would be a violation of WP:NPOV and I don't like it through the introduction of editorial bias by having Misplaced Pages editors decide that the issue is "not important" enough to mention on this page, despite multiple RS clearly making the case that this issue is worth mentioning. BootsED (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the rally in Oaks, PA that's been mentioned in this section and in various news media sources, here's the full video of it from C-SPAN . I think it's been mischaracterized as age and health concerns for Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes! Its absurd having a long article Age_and_health_concerns_about_Donald_Trump with 120 references but trying to hide that in the main article. This is really a hot topic in the media (US and abroad) so deleting it here is really ridiculous. Especially with the Joe Biden entry featuring such an paragraph. Andol (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Amen to this. Biden has never been diagnosed with dementia, so it would be wildly improper to suggest that he does, per WP:MEDRS, but we can and should report the widely WP:RS-reported public political controversy regarding the possibility of dementia, per WP:NPOV, as it is politically significant. Trump should not be treated as a special case who is somehow privileged over others. — The Anome (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes for basically the reason Andol gave. There's a long article on these concerns, so we clearly have ample sourcing for them, so it's weird we're not mentioning them much here. Loki (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Support. The decline may not have been as obvious as Biden's because it started from a much lower baseline, but it was noticeable and noticed. Just this week, there was the 39-minute musical interlude at the Oaks, PA, town hall; the non-responsive rambling during the Bloomberg interview; on Friday, a 10-year old asked Trump on as increasingly unfiltered and undisciplined". Quoting the AP headline: Trump kicks off a Pennsylvania rally by talking about Arnold Palmer’s genitalia. NPR called it "an unusually energetic rally for the former president, who has looked and sounded tired of late while doing multiple events and interviews a day across multiple swing states".Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Gold, Michael (October 19, 2024). "At a Pennsylvania Rally, Trump Descends to New Levels of Vulgarity". The New York Times. Retrieved October 20, 2024.
Bender, Michael C. (October 20, 2024). "Four of Trump's Most Meandering Remarks This Week". The New York Times. Retrieved October 20, 2024.

Oaks Town Hall — (Good-faith refactoring of distracting side issue was reverted. The following posts were in response to this. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC) )

It wasn't a rally. It was a "town hall" staged by the Trump campaign, with Republican operatives posing as "constituents" and reading off cue cards. One of them, "Angelina who had voted Democrat all my life and was from a Democrat union household" had to correct herself because she forgot to say "union household"; she's Angelina Banks who was the Republican nominee for Township Commissioner and State Representative in Pennsylvania's 154th and lost with 19.3% to Nelson's 80.7%. Mischaracterized? The campaign had prepared 10 Q&As but after five the Q&A turned into a bizarre musical event with Trump giving a minion a playlist and then standing on stage not even dancing. Just standing, occasionally swaying, jerking his arms, finger-pointing at the audience, and making faces/smiling(?). And, in keeping with the musical theme, two days later Fox unearthed the set of Hee Haw for an all-women town hall with an audience of MAGA supporters asking curated puff questions. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Wolff, J.D. (October 17, 2024). "Busted! Former Republican Candidates Posed As Constituents at Trump's PA Town Hall". MeidasTouch. Retrieved October 17, 2024.
"2022 Pennsylvania State House - District 154 Election Results". South Bend Tribune. January 26, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2024.

I think it's been mischaracterized... You personal analysis of reliable sources is of no concern to this page. If the sources cover this as an example of the subject's mental decline, then so shall we. Not necessarily in the proverbial "WikiVoice" but as "sources say." For now. Zaathras (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No There are no reliable secondary sources reporting that Trump has age-related cognitive decline, just speculation from his opponents. One editor mentioned that we covered this for Biden, but it was in the article about his recent presidential campaign. That's where this informtion belongs. It isn't possible to list every accusation made by his opponents in this article, so there is a high bar for inclusion. TFD (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Speculation from his opponents? You mean denial of his supporters? I think it is obvious to everyone except is supporters that he has massive issues. This is not a political campaign. It is a topic reported in international media all over the world, even making headlines. And everyone can see it. The only news outlets that don't report on this are the conservative media in US! Think about that. Greetings from Germany, where Trumps decline seems to be better covered than in (the conservative) parts of the US media. Andol (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there something askew with these sources? They seem to be speculating at the very least.

NYT: Trump’s Speeches, Increasingly Angry and Rambling, Reignite the Question of Age

Independent: Trump’s rambling and angry speeches raise questions about his age and fitness to serve four years

Independent: Experts say Trump’s speaking style shows ‘potential indications of cognitive decline’

New Republic: Watch: Embarrassing Video Reveals Trump’s Alarming Cognitive Decline

The Atlantic: Trump’s Repetitive Speech Is a Bad Sign

WaPo: What science tells us about Biden, Trump and evaluating an aging brain

LA Times: Trump’s rhetorical walkabouts: A sign of ‘genius’ or cognitive decline?

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources lose their reliability when they express politically motivated opinion and manipulation during a heated election campaign. Buried in one of those sources is a glimmer of rational journalistic integrity, "...the experts in memory, psychology, and linguistics who spoke to STAT noted that they couldn’t give a diagnosis without conducting an examination...". Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Not according to policy, bias it not a justification for rejecting a source, only lack of factual accuracy. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't fall for the bias claim. It doesn't make you biased if you report on those glaring issues. They are obvious. Rather the opposite is true. It takes willful denial, i.e. bias, to not see it. The whole point here is that Trump as a whole is such an abnormal person that he has shifted the goalposts to such a distance that there is no standard to measure him and thus he can get away with anything. And that is a problem for Misplaced Pages, because Biden is compared to normal people (making him look old), while Trump is compared to himself. Add the near-total polarization in the US, which has his supporters deny everything, even the possibility that there could be anything. Please step back and look up, how the Rest of the world looks at Trump and this election. It's not how the US see it. Trust me. 80 % of the population is in utter disbelieve how Trump with all of his glaring issues even got there, lest how someone who is right in his mind can even think a second of voting for him. And we do really debate if he has issues? Claiming he hasn't is biased, not the other way round. This is a clear situation where the truth is not halfway in the middle. Look at this. Just imagine Joe Biden or Kamala Harris being on stage bragging about the size of some dudes dick. The outcry would be thermonuclear and it would be broadly covered in his or her article in literally five seconds. Here? Thats Trump, normal day in the office, so what. Irrelevant, he made a thousand similar remarks. And that creates a systematic bias pro Trump, because there is no standard he doesn't fall short of, and therefore nothing is noteworthy, no matter how egregious. Andol (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No - If it was to be included, it would have to be introduced as mere speculation because of MEDRS, but I do not believe there has been any particulary significant RS reporting of speculation about cognitive decline as there was about Biden nor any substantive reason (like a drop out over it) to include it. Trump's speculated cognitive decline has only been popping in the news for the past couple months because he's now the old guy on the ticket, and Dems naturally want to capitalize on that. Not WP:DUE at this time. R. G. Checkers 14:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @R. G. Checkers: And yet we have all the cites from mainstream media WP:RS cited above. Mysteriously, this sort of reporting is regarded as WP:NPOV when it comes to Biden, yet not for Trump. As Elon Musk would say, "Interesting." Is there any point at which you might regarded the public debate about Trump's mental competence noteworthy enough to mention here, or are you just waiting for the election to be over? — The Anome (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  Yes, and it won’t be because he danced at a rally. It would be if there was sustained coverage over months long periods with concerns of cognitive decline or if he literally had drop out of the race because of it. But do I think that 3 weeks before an election with politics flaring and a sudden emphasis on his alleged mental decline is a good reason for inclusion? I answer no. R. G. Checkers 19:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  In other words, WP:DUE but not before the election? I didn't know WP had to adhere to DOJ guidelines. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 20:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  Is there some policy I'm not aware of that gives a waiting period, especially if your name isn't Joe Biden? DN (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  That's not exactly what Mr. Checkers said. I agree that we should ensure the content is WP:DUE by waiting to see if it's a blip, or something carried through by the sources for more than a few days. Space4Time3Continuum2x, you are usually a stalwart adherent of both established consensus and conservative application of policy - what gives? Riposte97 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  Last week happened. (I'm still trying to unimagine the unbelievable Arnold Palmer in the shower — a few extra nipples, a rudimentary third leg, a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back? Although that one is on Roger Stone, I believe, another Trump friend.) This isn't new. NYT in 2018: "Trump's self-absorption, impulsiveness, lack of empathy, obsessive focus on slights, tenuous grasp of facts and penchant for sometimes far-fetched conspiracy theories have generated endless op-ed columns, magazine articles, books, professional panel discussions and cable television speculation." Now we have a flood of reporting on what was obvious for months for everyone who watched Trump rallys on C-SPAN. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  Your personal analysis or perceived opinion on what's "obvious" about political candidates is irrelevant to the discussion at issue. You're getting seriously close to WP:NOTFORUM. Quit rambling and stick to neutral discussion about the topic at hand to improve the encyclopedia. Just10A (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  WP:NOPA. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  Asking you to stop violating policy is not a personal attack. Just10A (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  
  This has been reported on maybe as far back as 2017.
  
  2017
  
  2017
  
  2017
  
  2017
  
  2017
  
  Jan 2024
  
  No one seems to be suggesting this goes into the lead sentence, and as far as policy goes, eerily similar material to Age and health concerns about Donald Trump made it into the the Biden article as far back as July 4th, and it's STILL there. DN (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  As is frequently pointed out to new users of this page, the fact that some other page on Misplaced Pages has a different consensus has no bearing on this one. That is usually understood when we are resisting putting something positive in, but seems all to quickly jettisoned when convenient. Regarding the Oaks Town Hall which precipitated this thread, neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources that Trump had some kind of mental episode. See for example: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-town-hall-derailed-after-medical-emergencies-crowd/story?id=114796716. I remain unconvinced that the content should be added. Riposte97 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  "neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources"
  
  These threads get so long it's hard to keep track. Please link or cite examples of partisan and neutral sources to which you're referring if you get the chance, it would be very helpful. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  
  Judging by the headlines, we shouldn't use the 2017 sources per the Goldwater rule (psychiatrists/psychologists diagnosing people they haven't seen as patients). Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  Also, I may a bit confused as to where this thread begins and ends. I may be unintentionally conflating the Oaks town hall and the Proposal: Age and health concerns...Cheers. DN (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
The 39 minute weird man-dancing (partly to YMCA, a song about gay hookups of all things) may actually be the worst example of his cognitive decline as he was quiet instead of rambling nonsense. Indeed, it could be an example of something not at all recent. It certainly doesn't belong in this article. Perhaps elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if you've seen the unbiased raw video of the Oaks, PA event. On the webpage of C-SPAN's presentation of the full video , to the right there is a list of the points of interest in the video: Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) Remarks, Fmr. President Trump Remarks, Affordable Homeownership, Family Request Congressional Hearing, Cost of Living, Immigration, Russia-Ukraine War, Immigration & Deportation, Medical Emergency. Notably missing from C-SPAN's list is "weird man-dancing". Bob K31416 (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
What's your point? The C-SPAN video shows the entire event. The music starts at 45:00 and continues until the end. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
For context, note that the first medical emergency began at 39:00, 6 minutes before your start time. Viewing the video starting at 39:00 will give a better idea of what's going on. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I've seen the video and I don't see your point either. Trump just said that he is ahead in every one of the 50 states in the polls. Every state. His goofy, silent dancing was far more rational. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What particularly irritates me here is the double standard of invoking WP:MEDRS in regard to this. No-one is asking for Misplaced Pages to state that Trump has dementia, or that he has suffered a medical cognitive decline; the issue here is that his increasingly erratic behavior has become a significant news story, and is being reported in reputable MSM sources such as the NYT and WP, who have bent over backwards to be fair to Trump, wouldn't have dreamed of doing eveen a few months ago. Yet for some reason, we're not allowed to use these WP:RS to report these events and the public concern about them in the MSM. This is a profoundly un-encyclopedic things to do that breaks the fundamental WP:NPOV policy. Rejecting any mention of significant major MSM coverage because you don't like it is just another form of WP:OR, — The Anome (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

But that is the consensus on this article. That MEDRS sources are required, even to have the conversation technically. PackMecEng (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If this is absolute, then it could not be in the Biden article. But it is. Therefore there is no way to deny the pro Trump bias. MEDRS cannot only protect Trump, but ignore Biden. To me the deletion sounds politically motivated. And that is a major problem. Andol (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andol Look at the top of the page in current consensus #39. Nothing is politically motived. PackMecEng (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I made a WP:BOLD edit to see how this plays out . Maybe there is consensus? DN (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm good with it and hope it sticks. PackMecEng (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry DN, could you link to your change? I can't seem to find it. Riposte97 (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

He changed it on the Joe Biden page, not the Trump one. I had the same confusion initially. Just10A (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. Riposte97 (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do NOT refer to me as "he". They or them is fine. DN (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree MEDRS applies there any more than it does here, but I don't particularly care if it's in the lead or how much weight to give to it, so long as it's there. I will revert if someone tries to remove all three paragraphs about it in the other article though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

An editor has now re-added Age and health concerns about Joe Biden back into the lead on Joe Biden's BLP. I am not going to remove it, and agree that we should leave it. IMO Age and health concerns about Donald Trump now seems over-DUE here. DN (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Mx. Nipples, the existence of a section on another page has absolutely zero bearing on what should be on this one. None. We go by consensus, not by precedent. Riposte97 (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic about gender pronouns. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not refer to me as "Mx." or "Mr." as that appears to be your intent. They/them is accurate. DN (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

(Given that "x" is nowhere near "r" on a keyboard, I'm guessing "Mx." was not a typo but an attempt to be gender neutral. It can be read as a convenient shorthand for "Mr., Ms., or M-other, as you please". It's the best attempt available, since "They/them Nipples" would be nonsensical. Maybe we don't need to go any further down this rabbit hole, at least not on this page.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I simply asked for them not to call me that, I did not get upset or make a personal attack, I just made a simple request. I'm aware of what Mx. means and I simply do not wish be referred to in that manner. I do not care why you think it's any of your business or why you feel the need to intervene here, and that is a rabbit hole that certainly does not belong here. DN (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I read "Mr." as that appears to be your intent to mean you thought they meant (intended) "Mr.". Sorry if I misread easily-misread writing. I do not care why you think it's any of your business or why you feel the need to intervene here - Now you're gettin' me riled. Look, you comment on this page, regardless of the topic, and you open yourself up to replies from anybody. There are no "private" conversations here or almost anywhere else at Misplaced Pages. You want a "private" conversation, use email. That's how it works, like it or not. End. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You're the one that brought it up here, and I have since moved it to a personal talk page, where it belongs. DN (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

↑↑↑↑ Agree as to process. Other articles never affect this article unless a community consensus says they do for a specific discrete situation. This is a common misconception, understandable given the human desire for consistency, but you won't find it anywhere in policy, and not for lack of attempts to make it so. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That was more of an aside. See Riposte's removal of cited content on the current subject, referring to a now seemingly dormant discussion. DN (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It's been covered extensively in media reports, which is the only criteria that really matters here. Cessaune 17:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Question Riposte97 See edit - There has been no further discussion here for the last few days. What is still being discussed? BTW, "age and health concerns for Joe Biden" was added back into his BLP in the lead, and I see no further arguments over MEDRS. DN (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the Biden page, take it to the Biden page. There is currently no consensus to add the disputed material to this page. Riposte97 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I never had a problem with the Biden BLP, but I asked you what is left to discuss here. DN (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll ask again. What is left to discuss? DN (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you that there isn't a ton left to discuss. But the discussion did not end with your proposed addition achieving consensus. As already outlined in this thread: (1) wikipedia is not a source, what occurs on a totally different page has no bearing on this one; and (2) Even if it did, the situations are clearly distinguishable. It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race. The same is not true for Trump. Thus, since the situations are distinguishable and consensus has not adopted it, it's unlikely to be added. Just10A (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, it wasn't my proposal, and the primary argument against the addition seemed to be that it violated MEDRS, not because this BLP needed to be like the Biden BLP. The Biden BLP was only used as an example of how the MEDRS argument didn't seem to hold water. DN (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race."

I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other?

Anyway, that content was added BEFORE Biden dropped out.

So, there goes that excuse. DN (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other? We aren't. That's why I explicitly began the point with "Even if it did". We don't use another page as a source, but even if we did, the situations are clearly distinguishable for the reasons already outlined throughout the post. The addition doesn't have consensus, so it's not going to be added at this time. Just10A (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for the Oaks Town Hall to be used as evidence for concerns about age and health, especially in VOICE. Far from it. I simply disagree that there is any clear violation of MEDRS to include something like (below)
Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates WaPo

Cheers. DN (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, that's not really what this thread entitled 'Oaks Town Hall' is about. Perhaps start a new one with your suggested text. Riposte97 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Why start yet another thread? Seems like an additional time sink. DN (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Support - sorry, I missed this on the talk page. Now extensive and increasing sourcing on the topic. Blythwood (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Seems like the Harris campaign and news media have moved from age and health concerns to fascism. Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Seems there was a YouGov poll and pieces in Time magazine and the New Yorker, recently...

"As the calls grow for Donald Trump to release his medical records, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris called out her opponent once more during a rally in Houston, Texas, on Friday. She pointed towards the legal battle of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other Texas right wing leaders to access the private medical records of patients who seek out-of-state abortions." Time 10-27-24

"Over half of Americans, 56 percent, said they believe that Trump’s age and health would impact his ability to serve as commander-in-chief at least a little bit, according to another YouGov poll conducted earlier this month.

Over one-third, 36 percent, said the former president will be “severely” undercut by his age and health. Another one-third, 33 percent, said those factors will not impact the Republican nominee.

Inversely, 62 percent of Americans said Harris’s health and age will not affect her work in the White House if she is elected president, according to the survey." The Hill 10-26-24

"couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump turned in one of his strangest performances in a campaign with no shortage of them—part of a series of oddities that may or may not constitute an October surprise but has certainly made for a surprising October. 'Who the hell wants to hear questions?' he hollered at a town hall in Pennsylvania, after two attendees had suffered medical emergencies. Then he wandered the stage for nearly forty minutes, swaying to music from his playlist—'Ave Maria,' 'Y.M.C.A.,' 'Hallelujah.'" The New Yorker 10-27-24

"An increasing number of Americans say Donald Trump is too old to be president — but not as many as when President Joe Biden faced similar concerns about his age over the summer.

A new poll from YouGov found that 44 percent said Trump, at age 78, is too old to lead the executive branch. That figure is up from 35 percent who said the same in a similar February survey." The Independent 10-27-24
Cheers. DN (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, there is no way this is going to get consensus here. If you feel really strongly, maybe start an RfC. That would probably be the most appropriate way to displace the existing RfCs. Riposte97 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I was replying to Bob K3416's recent request..."Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns?"

Your declarative statement may be a bit out of place in this context, and brings up what appears to be an inconsistency.

As you also stated in your recent removal of cited content that is months old (clarify - irl - not the article itself)... "This is still being discussed on the talk page"

What are the means by which to reconcile "this is still being discussed", at the same time as, "there is no way this is going to get consensus here"?

Cheers. DN (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your response with the links.

Regarding the rest of your message, the logic isn't clear. Various messages here are evidence that it is still being discussed and the point that you are trying to make with your sentence, "What is the means..." is unclear. For one thing, note that you are comparing an edit summary on the article page with a message on this talk page. Seems like apples and oranges. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Darknipples has now edited their comment, although the argument isn't any more compelling imo. Riposte97 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I was about to add (Btw I corrected my grammar slip) Reverting under the auspices of "it's under discussion", gives the appearance of contradiction to the recent declaration that "there is no way to achieve consensus"

Granted, I wouldn't completely disagree with Riposte97's removal of some of the context, but the rest seems like it could be DUE. (below)
Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates.

A partial revert leaving this portion would seem fine. DN (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The second sentence wasn't in the given source. The insinuation of being in poor health since becoming a politician is contradicted by the fact that he served 4 years as president without any apparent chronic health problem or physical weakness, and he is currently vigorously campaigning for president. Be careful of age discrimination where healthy people are presumed weak and unhealthy because they are old. If you were elderly, healthy and strong, I don't think you would like people insinuating that you were unhealthy and weak because you were chronologically old. Be well. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
"The second sentence wasn't in the given source."

Good catch, I pulled it from the edit that was reverted so maybe the citation might have been placed further in.

As far as "insinuating he is in poor health", that is not what the proposal is about. The proposal was for reports regarding public concern for his age and health, that does not involve speculation or "insinuate" anything specific as to violate MEDRS.
"The age of presidential candidates has been a key issue for voters this year. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, conducted before last week’s Republican convention, found that 60 percent of Americans said Trump is too old for another term as president, including 82 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans."

DN (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
His age is already in the article. Riposte97 (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Water is wet. DN (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes. There is overwhelming and WP:SUSTAINED coverage of it at this point; the fact that it is speculative (which some people object to above) doesn't matter, since we do cover speculation when it has sufficient coverage and is clearly relevant to the subject. As WP:BLP says, If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it, emphasis mine. For recent coverage, which someone requested above, see eg. ; for older coverage, there's a massive number of sources on Age and health concerns about Donald Trump. --Aquillion (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
the article have all the negatives about Trump or they have been put under a bad light. For eg: he met north korean president but without decreasing the nuclear prospect. It doesn't consider that Trump's predecessors or successors hasn't visited him and downright refused to that idea. And north korea did decreased thier frequency in building nuclear weapon. These article seems to be put forward by a Trump hater, and doesn't even mention all the good things he has done, like low inflation, boosting economy etc. 2409:40D0:1007:DCA2:E484:1679:D4AE:2CC2 (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes. See Public image of Donald Trump#Temperament. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I think it's time to close this discussion. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
What rationale? Stale? Consensus? We need a rationale or we just let things fall off the page naturally. Of course we've just added another 14 days by merely saying this. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
There is at least consensus to change Consensus item #39 (last modified July 2021) to allow discussion regarding Trump's mental health or fitness for office even without diagnosis. Biden's cognitive health has been in his article since 9/2023: Special:Diff/1175184377 Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved close sounds prudent. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I was confusing "close with consensus assessment" with "close to get stuff off the page per consensus 13". Sorry Bob. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
No, go on about Trump not living up to his promises to release his health info, but jeez, just don't add speculation. Let's do a litmus test: if I speculated about @User:Example having Obsessive-compulsive disorder on Misplaced Pages, my ass would get a harsh warning, if not a block, so apply that thinking to Trumpty-Dumpty. It's a person, yes, and it's bad to speculate like that about any person. I wonder what Trump thinks about all this Misplaced Pages obsession about him... Barnt Toust 14:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Kranish, Michael (July 22, 2024). "Trump's age and health under renewed scrutiny after Biden's exit". The Washington Post. Retrieved 13 October 2024.
"Americans are increasingly concerned about Donald Trump's age and fitness for office". today.yougov.com. Retrieved 2024-10-31.
Schneid, Rebecca (27 October 2024). "The Controversy Over Trump's Medical Records, Explained". TIME. Retrieved 2024-10-31.
Timotija, Filip (26 October 2024). "Many Americans worried about Trump's age, but less than Biden: Survey". Retrieved 2024-10-31.
"A growing number of Americans are concerned with Trump's age". The Independent. 27 October 2024. Retrieved 2024-10-31.
"Trump would be the oldest person to become president. He's not sharing health details". AP News. 16 October 2024. Retrieved 2024-10-31.
"Trump acts erratically. Is this age-related decline?". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 2024-10-31.
Lynn, Joanne (30 October 2024). "I'm a geriatric physician. Here's what I think is going on with Trump's executive function". Retrieved 2024-10-31.

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

RfC on describing Trumpism in lead

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Biographies
Politics, government, and law

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The current lead contains a simple mention of Trumpism. Should a brief description be added to this mention? A proposed wording for the added text, which is also up for debate here: characterized by right-wing populism, "America First" nationalism, and economic protectionism. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Addendum: A shorter version of the proposed addition could look like led to Trumpism, a right-wing populist movement. — Goszei (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 185#Proposal to add brief description of Trumpism in lead. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as FDR's lead describes in broad terms what "New Deal"ism is and Reagan's describes what "Reaganomics" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Suppport: we need to know what Trumpism is about.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about Trumpism - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. Artem... 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. DN (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. BootsED (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as misplaced for the lead, and per Artem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose too wordy in an already bloated article. Artem is indeed correct. Nemov (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose because “Trumpism” in the lead should be replaced with “MAGA”, which is a much more widely discussed and widespread thing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Artem P75, Slatersteven, Nikkimaria, and Nemov: To those opposing the proposed text based on concerns about length, would you support a shorter addition such as led to Trumpism, a right-wing populist movement.? — Goszei (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose We don't have room for this, and this isn't the Trumpism article, it is the Trump article. Also, this would need to be added to the body first, since the lead follows the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Anythingyouwant. I've never heard of Trumpism before. Neither has Britannica, which instead has an article for MAGA movement. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
What the Britannica article describes is exactly what our article at Trumpism describes. The term MAGA movement should probably be added to that article's lead as a synonym. — Goszei (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
It's a redirect. The BBC said, But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose mainly as it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article per Artem, also because Trumpism isn't a "a thought-through philosophy, a carefully mapped world view" inextricably linked to the man in the way that Marxism or Leninism are. Trumpism is more of a term descibing a series of populist instincts which are not very often used to characterise reactions/policies etc. When/if Trumpism itself becomes more elaborated, and the term more used, WEIGHT might then dictate a brief definition. At present it would be at least unnecessary and potentially confusing.Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Very much WP:Due to summarise the key tenets of his political ideology, much more so than discussing specific policies as in the status quo. I’m very confused about the opposes, however the leads of Margaret Thatcher and Juan Peron only mention their ideologies rather than describe them

Kowal2701 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose, while it's only a few extra words it's still more to an already-too-big article, and the link to the Trumpism article is there for a reason. — Czello 10:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak Oppose, Agree with same sentiment as @Czello 's comment above. Seems like redundancy when we have a link that lets readers click on it if they don't understand a concept or definition. This also sets bad precedence to have to define every single political descriptor.

MaximusEditor (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: Trump's lead is already "huuuge." And considering that WP:TTD (which discusses the use of "technical terms or terms of art and jargon specific to the subject matter") asks the question, "On the other hand, do not treat every “scientific” word as a technical term. Ask the question: Is this the only article or one of a very few where the term might be encountered in Misplaced Pages?", and seeing as there is another page entirely dedicated to discussing the topic, and where we're already pushing WP:LEAD best practices with the length and depth of Trump's BLP, let's move on.

As a side note, WP:TTD has some handy recommendations for handling formatting of the word "Trumpism" for those interested. Pistongrinder (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Support : For me this is almost a mandatory addition for a very simple reason, the lead has zero words used to describe Trump's rise to power. Zero. This is not acceptable. These three very simple and short words describe it very well and are widely sourced. The description should take its place at the end of the second paragraph, in a chronological order, to either describe Trumpism or even more directly his first election campaign. The objection that the lead is not convincing. Other things can go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaandpolitics (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The Apprentice

I'm making a couple minor but bold changes to the TOC outline. This article doesn't have a TOC item for The Apprentice, which was a milestone in Trump's life. The Apprentice led Trump to licensing deals worldwide. Any help is welcomed especially to keep the chrono order. For example, I fudged the SAG-AFTRA para out of order to keep it.

Before

   1 Early life and education
   2 Personal life
       2.1 Family
       2.2 Health
   3 Business career
       3.1 Real estate
           3.1.1 Manhattan and Chicago developments
           3.1.2 Atlantic City casinos
           3.1.3 Clubs
       3.2 Side ventures
           3.2.1 Trump University
       3.3 Foundation
       3.4 Legal affairs and bankruptcies
       3.5 Wealth
   4 Media career
   5 Early political aspirations (1987–2014)

After

   1 Early life and education
   2 Personal life
       2.1 Family
       2.2 Health
   3 Business career
       3.1 Real estate
           3.1.1 Manhattan and Chicago developments
           3.1.2 Atlantic City casinos
           3.1.3 Clubs
       3.2 Side ventures
       3.3 Foundation
       3.4 Trump University
       3.5 Legal affairs and bankruptcies
       3.6 Wealth
   4 Media career
   5 The Apprentice
   6 Licensing the Trump name
   7 Early political aspirations (1987–2014)

-SusanLesch (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, a barnstar is on its way for this edit. Thank you!

Is there a way to keep some of this? Biographer Maggie Haberman writes that he was an athletic teenager who dreamed of a Hollywood career. In 1969 Trump followed his heart, walked into the Palace Theater, and asked to become a producer, invested in one show and lost his money. I have more reading to do but I think Haberman repeats Wayne Barrett that Trump always wanted to be a Hollywood star. I think it's important to our narrative to keep the progression from youth -> TV -> a political stage. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting until we can frame that progression more holistically, since as presented it was disconnected from his eventual media career. (Plus I don't think athleticism is a necessary part of that progression). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. Trump was a remarkably good first baseman but we don't have to cite the one sentence that combines sports and Hollywood. So I agree to skip over sports.

My mistake, it was Timothy L. O'Brien, Barrett's research assistant. Everybody I've read so far includes Trump's interest in Hollywood:

Before heading off to college he was fairly certain that he wanted a career in show business, not real estate. He said he planned to attend the University of Southern California to study filmmaking and had already produced a Broadway show called Paris is Out.
Even after joining the family firm, Donald could not shake his youthful interest in show business and the faster track to fame that offered.
In college he had contemplated a movie career and took half a step in that direction
For a time, he flirted with signing up for film school at the University of Southern California—reflecting his lifelong love of movies—but he enrolled instead at Fordham University because he wanted to be closer to home.
The full extent of Donald Trump's college-years rebellion involved fantasizing about a career in the theater or film.

So where does it belong? I see no reason to use four words to say USC. How about this? Trump considered film school and a show business career, but in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University. Also I should add that he was a producer at The Apprentice. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

How about Trump considered film school but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University.? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer to better follow the sources. How about Trump considered a show business career but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University.?

(Also correction, I haven't read all these books; I make use of indices.) -SusanLesch (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

he was a producer: if you look at the credits of TV shows, you'll often see the stars of the show also listed as executive producers. It could just mean that they're the big names necessary to get financing for the show; they might also get input on scripts and story lines. Initially, Burnett planned to have a different business tycoon headlining the show each season but found few people interested in the job, and after the success of the first season he and NBC settled on Trump.

Yet you lead with "From 2004 to 2015, Trump was co-producer and host..." (most important position in the section). I don't understand your edits. You removed the person who created The Apprentice, and the person who created the catchphrase. This must be corrected. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

contemplated/flirted with a movie career: who hasn't dreamed of Hollywood? It isn't noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia. He didn't attend film school or take acting lessons. So he lost $70,000 in 1973 to get his name on the playbill of a broadway play that flopped. That's chump change compared to the $1.17 billion in business losses he reported to the IRS between 1984 and 1995. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be moot now, although I'd support removing the Broadway flop. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources to explain the importance of giving the origin of "You're fired." Trump didn't make this up by himself, although he tried and failed to trademark it.

NY Post: national catch phrase
WNYC: Haberman: "Trump ends up emulating Steinbrenner when he does the, "You're fired," catchphrase on The Apprentice."
Business Insider: He

-SusanLesch (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The NY Post is not a reliable source (also doesn't mention an origin for the catchphrase). Haberman cites her source for "homage to Steinbrenner" on pg. 528. It's this 2019 NBC article by Allan Smith. Smith mentions this 1978 Miller Lite commercial featuring Steinbrenner and Yankees on and off-again manager Billy Martin. It’s one sentence in a long article, and it merely says that Steinbrenner "first popularized" the phrase. Smith's 2017 BI article quotes former Yankees employee Ray Negron saying that Trump "borrowed that from the great George Steinbrenner, and people forget that" (another opinion), and in his 2019 NBC article Smith doesn't make this claim. Vince McMahon had been bellowing, barking, grunting, and growling "you're fired" as his catchphrase since 1998, and Trump was a regular at WWE events, so that’s also a possible source. Third possibility: He remembered the phrase from the many movies in which it was used in more or less violent scenes: Raising Arizona/1987, Robocop/1987, Back to the Future 2/1989, Dave/1993, True Lies/1994, YouTube compilation of movies going back to 1933. The only thing we know for sure is that Trump used it and unsuccessfully tried to trademark it in 2004. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

co-producer: I hadn't noticed that mistake. AFAIK, he was credited as executive producer - credit and pay without actual duties. They also had to edit out raw footage of Trump making sexist and racist or just plain dumb remarks. I'll get back to this later or tomorrow. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't wish to engage in an edit war but it is disrespectful to omit the man who created The Apprentice. Instead in this article we piled all the glory on Mr. Trump.

We've erased the connection to Trump's political aspirations (which are in the very next section).

Haberman wrote that Trump knew Steinbrenner since the 1980s. Are we splitting hairs to hide the issues? If you don't like Mr. Smith's choice of words, choose another per WP:FIXFIRST. One trademark lawyer says "You're fired" has been around for centuries. This point I'll concede because you keep arguing.

I defer to your years of editing this article. But I ask that you please listen to new information. Buettner & Craig, Kranish & Fisher (and Haberman and O'Brien) are the best sources we have so far, aren't they? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, you're off to a bad start if you don't wish to engage in an edit war. IMO, we had a neutrally written paragraph on the Apprentice, explaining what it was and what it did for his image. It was rewritten quite a few times in the six years I've been involved in editing this article, by different editors. That the show was somebody else's brainchild is a detail that belongs in the shows article, and that it ran for 14 seasons is confusing without the explanation that two "seasons" per year were broadcast from 2004 to 2006. I haven't gotten around to looking up previous discussions and the editing history. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages says The Celebrity Apprentice is linked in seasons to its precursor TV show, The Apprentice, which consists of seasons 1–6 and season 10. The Celebrity Apprentice consists of seasons 7–9 and 11–15. Perhaps those are the kinds of details this article can skip. Nikkimaria, would you possibly have time to copyedit the Apprentice paragraph? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Do we really need to explain that Trump didn't invent the extremely common phrase "you're fired"? Is anybody actually dumb enough to need that pointed out to them? And, if they are, how did they manage to get to this website?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Guessing most Wikipedians are too young to understand the cultural reference. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's a start at compromise.

Producer Mark Burnett made Trump a TV star when he created The Apprentice, which Trump co-produced and hosted from 2004 to 2015 (including variant The Celebrity Apprentice). On the shows, he was a superrich chief executive who eliminated contestants with the catchphrase "you're fired". The New York Times called his portrayal "highly flattering, highly fictionalized". The shows remade Trump's image for millions of viewers nationwide. With the related licensing agreements, they earned him more than $400 million.

Space4Time3Continuum2x, OK to edit the above in place if you want to. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

References

O'Brien 2015, p. 53. sfn error: no target: CITEREFO'Brien2015 (help)
Haberman 2022, p. 39. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHaberman2022 (help)
Buettner & Craig 2024, p. 108. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBuettnerCraig2024 (help)
Kranish & Fisher 2017, p. 45. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKranishFisher2017 (help)
D'Antonio 2015, p. 48. sfn error: no target: CITEREFD'Antonio2015 (help)
Buettner & Craig 2024, p. 7, "Mark Burnett, the television producer who made Trump a star, did not just hand him a fortune.". sfn error: no target: CITEREFBuettnerCraig2024 (help)
Grynbaum, Michael M.; Parker, Ashley (July 16, 2016). "Donald Trump the Political Showman, Born on 'The Apprentice'". The New York Times. Retrieved July 8, 2018.
Nussbaum, Emily (July 24, 2017). "The TV That Created Donald Trump". The New Yorker. Retrieved October 18, 2023.
Poniewozik, James (September 28, 2020). "Donald Trump Was the Real Winner of 'The Apprentice'". The New York Times. Retrieved October 18, 2023.

Edit War

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

I think there is an edit war going on here. Following the Inauguration of Joe Biden, Trump left office. Till he won, the title was clear, post-presidency. After he won, an edit war started. For some weird reason, these are the choices at hand:

1. Interpresidency
2. First post-presidency
3. post-presidency (current)

At first, people used choice number 3. Then the edit war started after the election, and people cannot decide between these choices. We need better security for this article, Extended confirmed is clearly not doing it here. Just please decide. 2601:483:400:1CD0:7D95:FF0A:CEC6:A8AD (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The situation is neither uncommon nor illegitimate when there is no clear talk page consensus. See #Time Person of the Year in the body for another example. It has nothing to do with the level of protection. Regardless, the next level after ECP is full protection, which is not going to happen. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, you see, Edit protection is next, ensuring only experienced people can do it. Look, i'm just saying we have to be really careful around this particular article mainly from the controversies. I have asked an experienced person to assess the situation. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

On January 20, 2025, the title of the section should be changed to "Post-presidency (2021–2025)". If there is a "second post-presidency (2029–)", we can change that to "First post-presidency (2021–2025)". I googled "Inter-presidency" and got a bunch of hits for Inter Milan President Beppe Marotta. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"Dormancy (2021–2025)". Or remission. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

He was not dormant, rather pretty active. False claims rised before he finally conceded. Not to be rude, but this title wouldn't be the best. I'll admit, we do need a clear consensus. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

We thought it was the end of the movie but it was just an intermission. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct, although after "the end of the movie" he was still active. And "Dormancy" was suggested in 2024 not 2021. Dormancy is described as a non-active state, although his activity between 2021 and now is active. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I support option 1 as the most accurate of the three. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The word isn't in any dictionary. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Why not use the model of the Cleavland article? Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I'm proposing, except for the "election of 18xx" part (we have the campaign/election sections instead) and not knowing how long Trump's second presidency and post-presidency will last. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Legally it has to end in 2028. Slatersteven (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

January 20, 2029. He's 78 — we'll see what happens. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Problem, it uses First post-presidency. It is already inaccurate but I will not discuss unrelated articles. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"§7 First presidency (2017–2021)" could change to "§7 Presidency (2017–2021)"? He only served one term. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This is concerning the following section. And I'm not sure if I should say this but I don't think we should start this on the Grover Cleveland talk page. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

And I was referring to the Cleveland article when I said First post-presidency. Sorry for not pointing it out. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Between presidential terms (2021–2025). Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You know, that sounds like a good idea.

Any objections? 2601:483:400:1CD0:382D:166E:CC23:2B80 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Solution in search of a problem, but meh as long as you wait until after the inauguration — just in case lightning strikes or an Acme anvil falls. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make the change after the inauguration on 1-20-2025. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, sounds good to me.

Ok, what should the next steps be?

Also, just curious, who pinned this? 2601:483:400:1CD0:45C3:C5FA:5FD8:FA51 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

who pinned this? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Huh — looks as though BoB K tried to (because I said "meh"??) and then you did? Can't figure out what happened. My suggestion: unpin. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I care about how it's pinned. Apathetic on whether it should be pinned. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, "added template to prevent archiving of this thread until a week after inauguration". I did that because this discussion was about taking an action after the inauguration. Mandruss changed the time from a week after the inauguration to 10 years and made an announcement in a box at the top of the section. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Well it seems all set. 2601:483:400:1CD0:A1A4:FD62:9508:F4EB (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Bulking down the article: Currently over 400Kb in system size

This article page is so large it's daunting and it's continuing to grow. On inauguration day later in January the article is likely to quickly grow by at least another 50Kb in system size once the new section for the next 4 years of presidency is added with the already written Misplaced Pages pages for the New Cabinet nominations, etc. The article should go through a significant bulking down process before the next presidential term is added later next month in January. Adding this discussion here on Talk page for thoughts from editors about which sections in this article to split or fork, which to shorten, which to abridge when sibling Misplaced Pages articles are already written for many of the topics in the different subsections of this article. This Trump biography article would seem better if it could be made shorter than 400Kb in the current system size. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Why ? Not enough server space ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Many reasons, a few being technical, most being readability concerns. Cessaune 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Cessaune. The article is currently taking about 55-65 minutes to read from top to bottom, which seems much longer than Misplaced Pages size guidelines. The technical size issue is that the article is now at about 410Kb, and on Jan 20 on inauguration day the section for the Second presidency of Donald Trump of 120Kb is going to be added to this article all at once. That is a total of 410Kb + 120Kb = 530Kb. At over 500Kb in size following inauguration day, that size for the article seems excessive and daunting. Are there any thoughts from editors about bulking down this article before the second inauguration on Jan 20 to make the article more readable for Misplaced Pages readers? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I think excessive detail occurs when the information is new and seems important at the time, but not after a few years. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you kidding with the bias in the introduction?

The intro should highlight that he was re-elected by the American people in reaction to the progressive agenda pushed by the current administration, high inflationary periods between 2020-2024, and a desire for better economic performance. This victory was unprecedented given the amount of lawsuits against Trump and the extreme anti-Trump sentiment in the media. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are written based off of what reliable sources say, not based on your original research on why he was elected or how "unprecedented" it is. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to give any reason for Trump's victory. I did a quick google search "reason for Trump winning election" and the first thing I found was The factors that led to Donald Trump's victory. In this source there was Anthony Salvanto, CBS News' executive director of elections and surveys, who said that there were three main factors behind voters' support of Trump: the role of the economy, a steady MAGA base, and out-of-touch democrats. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That seems like it would fit better in the article on the election than in the article on Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is that? This is information that is directly related to his career in politics. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy to provide sources of you can confirm that you will make the changes. Not sure who the gatekeeper is for what the world views on Misplaced Pages, but I hope is is not just one person. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Not how things work here. You suggest a change or addition, which is supported by citation to a source. Discussion will then begin from there on whether or not to include it. Zaathras (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There isn't exactly a "gatekeeper for worldviews" on this site, you need sources for statements you want to induct into the article and like what other people said, no original research. 108.27.60.251 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That kind of introduction is more fitting for Conservapedia, not Misplaced Pages. NesserWiki (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@NesserWiki: Conservapedia is extremely ironic, it's not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, what the OP wrote started a discussion that perhaps could be useful (although I don't think it will be useful). JacktheBrown (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of Operation Warp Speed?

Space4Time3Continuum2x decided to remove mention of Operation Warp Speed from the page and said that the "last discussion" was "inconclusive". I'm a little confused here, given the discussion they cited includes a number of editors agreeing that inclusion of OWS was warranted, but not much discussion about it at all.

The discussion also seems irrelevant given multiple reliable sources are saying OWS was a trump accomplishment. If it's in an RS and WP:VER, I don't think it's sound to wipe stuff because of some vague mentions on an archived talk page?

E.g. according to Vox: here: "One of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration — and yes, there were accomplishments — was Operation Warp Speed, the public-private effort to rapidly develop Covid vaccines"

Per CBC: "Operation Warp Speed, a Trump administration initiative to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines as fast as possible, should be lauded as a successful endeavour in what has otherwise been a poor effort to deal with the coronavirus, experts say"

Washington Post says OWS was a Trump accomplishment, while also being clear that Trump was an anti-science president who sometimes hindered the pandemic response.

It probably deserves a brief mention in the lead as I put here.

It would be great if other users could please weigh in.

Zenomonoz (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's probably worth a brief mention in the article body – like a sentence. A fuller treatment of the topic belongs in First presidency of Donald Trump, U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and obviously Operation Warp Speed. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"A brief mention – like a sentence"? If numerous reliable sources are calling this a major achievement with substantial discussion, a paragraph is more realistic. There are 12 entire paragraphs about COVID, some of it rather trivial in nature – but a single sentence for a multi-billion dollar policy implemented by a US president that has been praised by experts and sources? Zenomonoz (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

CNN seems to have agreed with you. "President Donald Trump finally has something legitimate to take credit for in his coronavirus response: A vaccine that appears poised to reach Americans in record time." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good source to use. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That CNN source, NPR, and

I would support a brief, neutrally worded one-sentence mention of Operation Warp Speed. Further detail should be reserved for the respective pages covering that topic. BootsED (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Reincluded: I have reincluded the paragraph and small mention in lead. I also took a look at the Obama article, which includes mention of the ACA as his "most significant accomplishment" per the WP:RS, so I think if the reliable sources describe this as Trumps, that deserved a mention in body. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This is more than a mention in the body - it should be shortened. If there is a concern that some of the other COVID-related content is trivial, then condensing that would be a better approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Two sentences is hardly "more than a mention". The reliable sources describe this as a major achievement of his presidency and a major component of his COVID-19 response. Misplaced Pages reflects the RS. It seems some of the editors chiming in think "consensus" depends on opinion and a vote count. That is false. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That is false. Is that a "My arguments are stronger, so I win" argument? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No, consensus building is important. But it is also important that Misplaced Pages editors arguments are based in policy/guidelines/reasoning. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect WP:RS, and I haven't heard a good argument as to why restriction to a single sentence is appropriate, given the way OWS has been extensively covered in the reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm just being practical, as that's how I roll. Based on my 11 years around here, a large part of it at this article, I'd generously estimate that one in four editors participating at this article actually meets that standard of collaborativeness (my mind doesn't change easily, so I wouldn't count myself as one of them). We can agree on ideals, but we still have to resolve issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You didn't just reinsert the paragraph after six hours (see "Warning: active arbitration remedies" banner at the top of this talk page), you also added a clause to the lead. I've reverted. The discussion so far supports a brief, e.g., one-sentence mention in the body. Developing an effective vaccine was only part of it; research and development was well under way in several countries by the time of Trump's announcement. ~~Producing and delivering the~~ The production and delivery of a "few hundred million doses of vaccine by the end of 2020" the Trump administration announced on May 15, 2020, was an unrealistic goal and a promise they didn't keep. (Cue Trump's vaccine conspiracy claims.) Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

A full delete of the section seems to be more than what Nikkimaria asked for above, maybe to shorten that material which was just deleted by some percentage might be better than the full delete. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I find this reasoning to restrict it to one sentence unjustified. Misplaced Pages reflects reliable sources. Consensus is made based upon validity of the argument per editing guidelines, and not because one editor thinks that this should be restricted to one sentence. Overriding and disputing the reliable sources seems like a major overstep. This is covered in the RS as a major component to the pandemic response, and a major achievement of his presidency.

And to clarify, I did not “reinsert the paragraph”, I wrote a new one. Second, the part in the lead was in my original edit. The lead summarizes his response to COVID, and this was a major component of that response.

Can you actually cite me reasoning/guidelines/policy that would favour your interpretation of restricting coverage to a single sentence, given that multiple WP:RS explicitly refer to this as his chief achievement?

Zenomonoz (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I hadn't noticed the text in the lead the first time around. Mention in the lead hasn't received any support in this discussion, and the rewritten text is no improvement on the first iteration. It's actually worse. The first sentence is based on a primary source (OWS); second sentence see my comment above. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 20:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

reasoning/guidelines/policy ... single sentence — not a question of guidelines or policy, it's where the consensus seems to be headed. Several editors in this discussion said they prefer a brief, short, or one-sentence mention, also neutral. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your comment above. Just because mRNA technology predates Trump isn't a reason for editors to make their own conclusions that OWS wasn't really an achievement at all. OWS may well have been imperfect, but multiple WP:RS still describe it as his chief achievement. E.g. Vox quite recently .

It would be appropriate to add a sentence to the end of the two sentence paragraph that I added, clarifying any of the critique of Trump regarding OWS, provided they are in WP:RS.

In addition to the Vox source, the CNN source did support: "Health experts broadly agree that the Trump administration’s national vaccine strategy was a success. The Trump administration was willing to invest in new vaccine technologies, foot the bill for large, expensive clinical studies and simultaneously pay for manufacturing vaccine candidates before it was clear they would prove effective and safe" Zenomonoz (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You`re cherry picking a random quote Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I highlighted multiple WP:RS above which are clear that OWS was perhaps his sole accomplishment as president. I'm not going to argue with people who don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. Questioning multiple reliable sources is not appropriate. It's verifiable (WP:VER) and in multiple reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

A handful of random quotes taken out of context Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any countervailing evidence, then? I haven't chimed in here because I wanted to see how this developed, but it seems Zenomonoz is arguing for RS and policy…the assertion that this should be arbitrarily restricted to one sentence (and the unhelpful removal in the meantime) doesn't improve the article.

How do biographical sources treat OWS? Riposte97 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That would require an effort on my part..I agree..I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic and is now taking credit for ending it..as did reagan taking credit for the wall coming down Anonymous8206 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's good. We should get into the nuances. Riposte97 (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

"I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic", if you actually read the COVID-19 section you would know there is already extensive coverage of trump "dragging his feet". It's frustrating that users are chiming in to say we must restrict mention of a major program he implemented during the pandemic to a single sentence, despite its heavy coverage in multiple reliable sources. No reasoning provided. Quoting multiple RS sources is the opposite of "cherrypicking", by the way. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to offer my agreement with @Zenomonoz that the listed references indicate notability of the bill itself and is representative of the most notable policy associated with his Presidency. It warrants some mention of inclusion as the references provided do appear to all validate its importance both nationally and with respect to his presidency. LosPajaros (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering that the major source of the vaccine was Pfizer, which was never a part of Warp Speed, and an immigrant who got the Nobel Prize for ages of research behind the vaccine; but had to leave the country for lack of funds -- a very brief mention somewhere may be OK. But that's all. More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
"More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine" – your reasoning does not seem relevant. Misplaced Pages reflects WP:RS, it isn't up to users to be making editorial decisions because they think it's an "insult" to people who worked on vaccines, or because of details surrounding the Pfizer vaccine. OWS funded numerous other vaccines, and scientific experts agree it was largely a success per the WP:RS. A later pending appointment of RFK has zero bearing on OWS and what the sources said about OWS. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The precise quotation from Pfizer is now added to the Operation Warp Speed article. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. An accurate documentation: O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I rewrote one of the added sentences over there per the given source , "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." As it originally was added with "Experts disagreed", seemed to express more disagreement than the source presented and that there was a larger sample. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I just reverted your rewrite for failing verification. CNN wrote: Three experts told CNN that this purchase promise may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process. Your text: Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order "played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process". I bolded the important words missing from your quote. The CNN article also mentions other uncertainties, such as Pfizer and BioNTech's purchase agreements with other countries. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Here again is my edit , which didn't change the quote that was there. I think what I had should be restored with the extra part "may have”, all of which is supported by the given source. In other words I think it should be like this, "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

CNN asked four experts — selected on what basis out of how many? The purchase was contingent on the vaccine's FDA approval, so it was Pfizer/BioNTech taking the risk of paying for development, clinical trials, building the production facilities — seems they were fairly certain that they would succeed. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Space, we are not going to start questioning the reliability of sources like CNN, nor committing OR. I agree with Bob's proposal, and will insert the amended quote tomorrow. Riposte97 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. A small paragraph about OWS is justified to go back in. It's covered extensively in reliable sources. Space (but mostly other users) have been questioning reliable sources WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH and carrying out WP:OR in the comments here. I received stern warnings for that when I was new to Misplaced Pages. This his all boils down to "what do the reliable sources say?". If there's extensive coverage in RS, it can be included. If users want to include RS mention of any criticism of Trump and OWS, that can be included too. Per the sources, OWS is a major part of the Trump admin COVID response. What do the reliable sources say? Zenomonoz (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I would also suggest that editors look at the rather large section COVID-19 pandemic and note what is currently there without OWS. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Within the context of how trump and his cronies handled the pandemic Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

New official portrait

Original heading: "When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?" ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a standard for this exact situation yet on here, given that Trump is only the second person to serve two non-consecutive terms as POTUS. Although, newer potraits tend be used over older ones on pages for other politicians. Overall, I'm curious as to what you all think should happen. NesserWiki (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

For infoboxes for politicians, Misplaced Pages uses the most recent official portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a precedent with Barack Obama. We use the most recent, second White House portrait which is closer to how he currently looks (salt-and-pepper rather than his earlier black hair). https://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/a-closer-look-at-obamas-new-official-presidential-portrait/ GhulamIslam (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 05 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
− ~~Post~~-~~presidency~~ (2021-present) + Time between the presidencies (2021-present)
Why it should be changed:In 2024, an edit war was started on this article. I started a talk discussion which solved the problem and we solved it by using this name.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): (Talk:Donald_Trump#Edit_War - (redacted in favor of a simple wikilink. Zaathras (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC))

2601:483:400:1CD0:A1A4:FD62:9508:F4EB (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how to format it other than what I did above, but there's no need to make this use reference tags like it is an article citation. Zaathras (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, no. "Time between the presidencies" is clunky and wordy, and no one suggested that as a possibility in the line section above. This is not a proper use of an edit request. Zaathras (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Making this article fully protected

when he is instated, there will be a wave of people (i think) that will try to edit it, and even bots. i find it necessary to make it fully protected (gold lock) thekingpachy (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Pages are not protected preemptively... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It's called Freedom of speech Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

i know, but i think there will be a large vandalism wave, maybe one we cant actually control. over the next 4 years we will definitely see vandalism, which will be extremely annoying and tedious to defend against. thekingpachy (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

is there anything that actually is fully protected? thekingpachy (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Not in this life...I would prefer to see the page taken down completely for 24 hours than it freezing due to edit conflict but that`s censorship as well Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

ok thekingpachy (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald trump is now president.

Change from President-elect to President. Kegsper (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kegsper you have to wait 14 more days... EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

has he been inaugurated? Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No, he is not. His term will start at noon on the 20th. Just like Biden's started at noon on 20 January 2021. Just like Trump's previous term started at noon on 20 January 2017. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No he's not, wdym???? He'll be the president starting from Jan 20. There's still two weeks left EarthDude (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I find titles for Presidents and other politicians in Misplaced Pages articles to be inconsistent. For example in President Biden’s article, one can see President Barack Obama and former president Donald Trump in the article, and political titles should be used more.

The Twentieth Amendment uses the term, “President-elect,” as you are using here, yet Misplaced Pages in this article, and in the article, “President-elect,” uses “president-elect,” “President,” is not capitalized.

The fact is people were more formal when I was younger, a President had the title of President the rest of his life. Easeltine (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Reduce number of citations

This article, without a doubt, should be reduced its citations. 800+ is too much. There are a very few sentences without 2 or more citations. We don't need thousands of citations to prove something. What we need is a reliable source, that we can absolutely rely on, and I can say we can rely on each citation in this article. Where Trump starts his new presidential term, there would of course be a new section for that term, and there for sure be more than 200 citations at the end of that term, and later his post-presidency. This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. Plus, Trump is one of the most influential people in the U.S. and the world, which makes no doubt that there won't be any misinformation or what did not happen in this article, I mean we don't need 800+ citations, if not fixed the problem, by October 2025, 900 citations in this article. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I do agree that we should delete excess citations, such as where two or three citations are used at the end of a sentence where one will do. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. What does number of citations have to do with article length? Would you read every citation?While obvious OVERCITE should be avoided, I have no problem with the current number of citations and I think the hard PEIS limit should be the primary limiter. (See #Tracking article size.) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The article size is daunting also, its over 400Kb in size. If the article were reduced in size, then the number of cites could be significantly reduced as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Indictment Dismissal

The last sentence in the lead currently says: "He faced more felony indictments related to his interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents, which were dismissed after his victory in the 2024 election." However, the classified documents case was dismissed by Aileen Cannon before the Nov election because she ruled Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. See AP article source: https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c. So, this sentence should be revised. Apparently, Jack Smith dropped his appeal of this ruling, but that does not change the fact that this case was dismissed last summer. Pillsberrydoo7 (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The late president's article

Looking at the article for the late Jimmy Carter, the Misplaced Pages article for him has a substantial section about his medical history as 'Personal life' and 'Health' which appears at the bottom of the article. The section at the Jimmy Carter article looks comprehensive and respectful. The Trump article, however, seems to put the Personal life section and Health section all the way near the top of the article which seems like an odd place to put this information. When I looked at the article for Washington, then the Personal life section is also put towards the bottom of the article. Should the 'Personal life' section and 'Health' for Trump be moved to the bottom of the article as seems to be the standard practice for Misplaced Pages president articles such as Washington and Carter? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting point, My only input is that it might have to do with the weight the information holds in contrast to the rest of the content in the article? Is there any MOS format that suggests that personal life/health might be better located at the bottom of an article? MaximusEditor (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Part of the problem maybe that Carter was kind of a notable politician who happened to also be a businessman, whereas Trump was a notable businessman who (or maybe a celebrity) who happened to become a pelican. So the article grew organically. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Autocorrect or some kind of avian easteregg? BusterD (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

One was created from the off as about a politician, one grew into one about a politician. Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"pelican"? BusterD (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Slatersteven was trying to type "politician" rather than 'pelikan', which he can edit into his comment if he wants to. I'm also finding that the president's article for John Quincy Adams also has Personal life section which appears near the end of the article, as opposed to the Trump article which for some reason has put it at the top of the article. The Misplaced Pages preference for Washington, Jimmy Carter, and now John Quincy Adams, see to all be placing the Personal life section towards the end of the article. Should the Trump article be consistent with the other president articles on Misplaced Pages and place the Personal life section towards the end of the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Most people probably don't come to this page to read about DJT's schooling. Riposte97 (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2025

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Donald Trump. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Update inflation dollar amounts under the "wealth" section i.e money received. Jupiterman9 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: