Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:09, 28 May 2020

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

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

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

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

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

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

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2025 Q1) List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2025) Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Business career of Donald Trump Donald Trump on social media Trump–Ukraine scandal Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

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

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

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

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

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 4, 2018). "Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone". Slate. Alex Pasternack (7 March 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Retrieved 9 March 2020. Brian Flood (2020-05-21). "Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. Retrieved 2020-05-22. "A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good," he wrote. "The article is almost a total whitewash. Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke."

Donald Trump is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:Vital article

Other talk page banners

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. 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.

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (88 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,362 9,362 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 35,772 Real estate 4,597 15,996 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 404,773 404,773

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

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

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

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

Highlighted open discussions

• #RFC: First sentence

• v
• e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

67. The "Health 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)

RFC: First sentence

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

Should we change the intro of this article to bring it in line with the other US presidents bio intro?

• ...is the 45th and current president of the United States, since 2017.

Do we need linking to Presidency of Donald Trump? GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey: First sentence

• Abort on the basis this RfC has not been created properly. Per WP:RFCST, it should be a "brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue." Instead, GoodDay has told us what should change and told us what we shouldn't have. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC) - RfC question has been rephrased. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Calm down. I've rephrased it into a 'question'. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As per the discussion further up. Since he is currently president, this is a different situation than former presidents. I also think it's just more useful to link to his presidency rather than the general concept. -- Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - As documented at #Current consensus item 17, the first sentence has been thoroughly flogged in recent years, with the last revisitation only two weeks ago. I think it's good enough. The main rationale given for this proposed change is conformity between presidents' BLPs, and there is nothing found in PAGs or other community consensus indicating that as a goal. I oppose that cookie-cutter approach, as it appears to serve a tiny minority of editors far more than it serves readers. No reader is going to be thrown for a loop if this article's first sentence has a different structure than those of other presidents' articles – if they even notice the difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other, but I oppose on the basis we have a consensus for the existing text and I see no reason why we cannot have its slightly differing language approach for the current officeholder. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - As we don't link to Presidency of... articles in the other aforementioned bios. Also, we show the years of service in the others. Like any hard-copy encyclopedia, we should have consistency in a series of bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, but this is not a hard-copy encyclopedia. We can, you know, edit stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  "We should do x" is a completely empty argument without the "why" we should do x. I'd be interested to know "why" it's really important to be like hard-copy encyclopedias in this way, when in many other ways we are happy (or proud) to be different. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  We can't accept sloppiness in the intro, which is what we now have. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  I've just looked again, and I see no sloppiness. Are you sure you're at the right article? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Are you sure you're at the right article? Quit it. PackMecEng (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Yes the intro should include President of the United States as what was consensus #17. The April 2020 discussion was *not* a consensus to eliminate the commonly included POTUS link, it was asking about potential alternative techniques to add a link and TALK mentioned to keep the POTUS. There was not an RFC or stated question to drop POTUS, so that should still be present as the explicit consensusifying. There wasn’t technically even an explicit ask to change consensus and add a link - it was just asking for potential means, and a later proposal might have been done. Perhaps “...is the 45th and current President of the United States, since 2017.“ Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Among the other stated reasons, see MOS:CURRENTLY, which discourages the use of that word. – Muboshgu (talk)`

  "Except on pages updated regularly". ―Mandruss ☎ 09:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  I still feel its good practice to keep it out of pages that are updated regularly, but it seems consensus is not with me on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. ~ HAL333 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone above as well as per the consensus to have the current text. –Davey2010 19:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus to have the current intro. This RFC is what will determine which version gets a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there absolutely was a consensus. We all discussed it in your absence and agreed to the change. An RfC is only necessary in a deadlocked discussion, which was not the case. This RfC is your attempt to overturn an existing consensus because you weren't happy. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A tiny number of editors changing a long-kept version, after a few days of discussion? No consensus there. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The change was not made by a tiny number of editors. Most or all of the editors who participate on this page saw the change, saw the discussion, and chose not to object to the change on the basis of the discussion. Many did not participate in the discussion, but nevertheless contributed to the consensus by their silence. The consensus list entry #17 was updated without objection. You were not here to participate in the discussion, nor around to object to the change on this basis of it, and you can't drop in ten days after a change and cry "no consensus". This concept has been reaffirmed many times at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We obviously disagree on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but don't confuse that with having equally valid positions. No one can force you to respond to reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I see you unhatted your personal comment eroniously citing TPG. Sorry but no it is commenting on the contributor and not on their content and should be hatted as off-topic personal commentary. Stuff like No one can force you to respond to reason are not helpful and if you want to be taken seriously you should probably stop making them. Quit badgering people that disagree with you. PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, PackMecEng, but your comment is way out of line. So far, your only contributions to this thread have been to criticize Mandruss, so maybe you need to heed your own advice. GoodDay missed the consensus party and is now abusing the RfC process (which is really only meant for deadlocked discussion) to try to overturn the will of the editors who participated in the original discussion. Mandruss is right to point that out, and GoodDay's refusal to accept the normal Misplaced Pages process here is the troubling aspect of all this. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We have been having a discussion about it on my talk page, you are welcome to stop by. I do not plan on continuing here unless asked to. PackMecEng (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support The starting year of his presidency is an important piece of information that should be in the lede, but currently it is not even mentioned there. Given that other presidential articles have term years in the first sentence, then I don't understand why the present article doesn't have it. The infobox has this information, but per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". The starting year of Trump's presidency should be added to the first sentence and it would be of use to the reader who probably, like me, wonders when did Trump start his presidency. Thinker78 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support As we write for an international audience, better we link to the page that discusses what a US President is rather than just to the one about this President.--MONGO (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The link was discussed (see consensus #17) and the agreement was to change it to the "Presidency of Donald Trump" page. Also, point of grammar, "since" requires the use of present perfect, i.e., "has been." tempted, but nah Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose/Abort per current consensus item 17. This matter was recently discussed and satisfactorily resolved, and it is irresponsible to have an RfC that does not link to the extremely relevant context of the prior discussion in the opening statement. Nothing has changed in the past month that would require revisiting this so soon. {{u|Sdkb}}  00:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Was not resolved at all. A tiny number of editors decided to change #17 among themselves & after only a few days. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – Linking to Trump's specific presidency is more useful to readers than linking to the generic article about what a U.S. president is. — JFG 06:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - As far as I'm concerned, no logical argument has been presented to necessitate the need to change this long-standing lead. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The current lead is not longstanding. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion: First sentence

• Seems an oops. The April discussion asked about possible ways to add, not about removal. There wasn’t even an agreement *to* add, it just was asking for methods. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• @GoodDay: For this RfC to have any validity, you need to at least refactor to link to the April discussion in the question. {{u|Sdkb}}  00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You can link to that 'short discussion' if you like. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Personal image" subsection; change to Consensus item 39

I had attempted to add this subsection:

Personal image

Since running for president, Trump's temperament and mental status has been a regular topic of public discussion. Trump has responded by saying that he has a "great temperament" and is a "very stable genius". A 2020 Pew Research Center survey found that most Americans would describe Trump as "self-centered".

Sources

Levin, Aaron (25 August 2016). "History of Goldwater Rule Recalled as Media Try to Diagnose Trump". Psychiatric News. American Psychiatric Association. doi:10.1176/appi.pn.2016.9a13. Retrieved 25 April 2020. Maza, Carlos (24 January 2018). "The awkward debate over Trump's mental fitness". Vox. Retrieved 18 May 2020. Rucker, Philip; Parker, Ashley (8 January 2018). "The White House struggles to silence talk of Trump's mental fitness". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 May 2020. Cillizza, Chris (1 August 2016). "Donald Trump's ABC interview may be his best/worst yet". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 May 2020. Baker, Peter; Haberman, Maggie (6 January 2018). "Trump, Defending His Mental Fitness, Says He's a 'Very Stable Genius'". New York Times. Retrieved 18 May 2020. "Few Americans Express Positive Views of Trump's Conduct in Office". Pew Research Center. 5 March 2020. Retrieved 18 May 2020.

While this would be a change to Consensus item 39, "Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health", I do not think it goes against the rationale of the relevant RfC close discussion, because this section does not describe Trump's mental health itself (besides Trump's self-description as "very stable"), it merely informs the reader of this very noteworthy story about his public image. There is no "armchair diagnosis", and per WP:WEIGHT "we should include a paragraph just because of the sheer volume of coverage." We could also include more about his personal image similar to George W. Bush#Cultural and political image. Thoughts? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Removed last sentence from proposal as UNDUE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea..it`s relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:D153:56BA:8530:2D8F (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we would need another RfC to overturn Consensus item 39. Most of the material you are proposing was rejected then. I don't think this would add anything to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yuck, this 'mental health' again. Dubious to try in this area, it's not exactly a BLP event or choice, but certainly not this proposal. This one doesn't have the prominence of the earlier items that have been ruled out, and if we're not allowing "mental status" section of armchair diagnosis from professionals why would we seek it from non-professionals ? Just to be clear in WP terms, this appears to be an WP:OR assemblage of stuff, which isn't a coherent set of parts and is WP:UNDUE as given -- as in I'm not seeing the poll shown to have much relative WP:WEIGHT. And not a valid psychological opinion per WP:MEDRS or WP:PSCI. Look, if you want to discuss personality, you're going to have to keep it limited to conveying the POVs about it positive ones too, and also not wander into manufactured things or terms like "mental status". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree that the poll would be UNDUE without also adding positive perceptions of his personality (which I suggested by referencing George W. above). However, I feel the rest is due. "Mental status" is the term used in the first reference, the APA news source which was discussing the Goldwater rule as the country was first getting "swept up in media speculation about the mental status of" Trump. The APA news used "mental status" again a year later reporting that "psychiatrists have publicly offered their views on the mental status of the 45th president." The opinions themselves are not being discussed in my proposed version, just the fact is that this is a huge story about Trump's image. Notice that this is all I'm suggesting we say about the story itself: "Since running for president, Trump's temperament and mental status has been a regular topic of public discussion." Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph of this version is the last information we had in the article about Trump's mental health. This information is materially different than what I am suggesting. There we had actual diagnoses listed. My proposal merely acknowledges that this noteworthy story exists. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We could also add something about his personal image as the "embodiment of achievement", only with a higher-tier and more positive RS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

He also has a reputation as a "straight shooter" not worried about political correctness.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya, RE: personal image: if you propose to add a few cherry-picked opinions like “achiever” and “straight shooter”, why not a few more generally held opinions like “bully” or “childish”  ? Trying to characterize his personality under the title of “personal image” is simply not going to be possible. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Melanie, I don't appreciate your attitude. I'm sure if we are professional we can summarize his public persona. Yes, "bully" and "childish" are popular descriptions of his perceived personality. Those words help as a starting off point for brainstorming. Those words are judgmental versions of other descriptions, such as "lacking emotional intelligence", "uninformed", "aggressive", or the example from the Pew poll, "self-centered". But, "the embodiment of success" is the public image many sources have said he has successfully cultivated for himself. Sources also described his appeal to voters as someone who "tells it like it is". We don't censor the encyclopedia because topics are difficult. I'm sure we can address everyone's concerns. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, you participated in the relevant RfC; what are your thoughts on these changes to address what had been previously opposed?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I am not in favor of including anything about Trump's mental state whatsoever. Even high quality sources that discuss the matter are based mostly on speculation and armchair diagnoses, and it just doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I oppose this addition, for two reasons. One, I still oppose writing anything about his supposed mental state (I have my own opinion on the subject, but IMO none of that kind of speculation belongs here). I don't believe we've ever done that for other presidents. Even when there is a whole article, like Public image of George W. Bush, we talk about his intelligence but not his mental health. Basically, I reaffirm the consensus statement as it stands. Two, it really adds nothing to his biography to say "there has been discussion about his temperament and mental status" and "this is what he says about himself". Thank you for striking the public opinion poll. If we're not allowing analyses from mental health professionals, we should certainly not post the results of popular polls. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Melanie, I'm hearing what sounds like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments. Please cite policy reasons for your opposition; the policies cited in the RfC close are not violated with this text. The relevant policy here is WP:NFRINGE. "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Misplaced Pages. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Misplaced Pages as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines", or for a topic within an article, WP:WEIGHT guidelines. Similar information is included about Hillary Clinton in her presidential campaign article: "Despite this letter , rumors and conspiracy theories concerning Clinton's health proliferated online. In August 2016, Trump questioned Hillary's stamina and Sean Hannity called for Clinton to release her medical records, fueling these theories." And as for the poll, that was not an "analysis" of Trump's mental health; it was a public opinion poll about his personality and temperament, i.e., his public image. I did not remove it because it did not represent the opinions of experts; I removed it because including that opinion alone created a WP:BLPBALANCE problem. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't throw around cheap accusations like WP:JDL. Reaffirming consensus is not JDL. If you want more policy reasons, just ask. I oppose it because 1) IMO it obviously violates BLP to talk, or speculate, or report that other people are speculating, about a person's mental health absent any actual evidence. BLP overrules FRINGE by a mile. And 2) we don't do this for other people even when there has been public speculation. I already cited GW Bush, where there is an entire article about his public image but does not say anything about his mental health. For an example on the other side of the political spectrum, look at Joe Biden; there have been many attempts to claim that he is "losing it" but they are not mentioned in the article. Some of us have worked to keep them out. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Melanie, please be civil. Like I said, I don't feel your arguments are policy-based; that is my understanding of WP:JDL, but I could be wrong. It is not a violation of BLP because we would only "report that other people are speculating" about someone's mental health with evidence that they are in fact speculating. 2) sounds like Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists, but George Bush is not a comparator here; as far as I know his mental health has not received coverage in RS. I referenced George Bush only to show an example of a "Personal image" subsection. Obama's image section is less personal: Barack Obama#Cultural and political image Joe Biden is also WP:OTHER, and obviously the weight is quite different here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolya Butternut (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You asked for my policy based reasons. I gave them. You disagree. You apparently either think citing BLP is not a policy based reason, or that BLP doesn't apply to what you are proposing to do. I think it does. So let's move on and see what other people think. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, does my proposed text above avoid the policy problems discussed in your RfC close? Note the sourcing published by the APA itself. I wonder if we were to consider the hypothetical of a notable individual who is 100% of the time identified with the perception of having mental illness, what would Misplaced Pages do in that situation? My thought is that we would not try to inform readers about his mental health itself; we would inform readers about this aspect of his life story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering that the very first source in the proposed addition focuses on the Goldwater rule (which was the subject of extensive debate last time), I find little substantial difference between this version and previous versions. Speculating on a person's mental health is a BLP issue. If folks wish to hold another RfC, they are free to, as consensus can change. Still, I think without new and better sources, it would only be an attempt to re-litigate. As I said in my close I think there could be some carefully worded addition at some point in the future. I don't think this addition is carefully worded enough, and I think it doesn't provide DUE weight. I think a more solid version should be work-shopped prior to any new RfC. Such a version probably needs to be paragraph length, and summarize a good dozen or two sources. However, my viewpoint should not be the overriding factor here. My close was merely a summary of the arguments presented at the RfC, and reflected a very, very difficult discussion. Most importantly: my close summarized that folks felt we could not create a neutral, BLP conforming paragraph given the sources available. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I am trying to understand your interpretation. The RfC discussion about the Goldwater rule seems to center on whether it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages to use medical opinions from professionals who violate their own professional standards. The APA obviously is not violating the Goldwater rule by reporting that the media is discussing Trump's mental status, so this addresses the concerns raised in the RfC discussion about the Goldwater rule. The previous version was meant to inform about his mental health itself, and it included diagnoses. I am not proposing we say anything like, "according to Dr. Bandy Lee, Trump is dangerous". I am proposing that we either say something about his public image or we say something about this ongoing media event in his life. We may have a dozen or more sources between the Vox video and WaPo meta-stories. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The last version focused on issues of direct speculation, but the overall conversation was about whether or not to mention it at all. My close and reading of consensus was on a basis of no inclusion whatsoever. However, I'm not against a new RfC to see about inserting this paragraph. I just think it currently goes against the last RfC, and thus would need support for inclusion. CaptainEek ⚓ 16:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I understand if you don't want to stick your neck out, but I note that you did not directly answer my questions.  Yes, I know your close found consensus for no inclusion whatsoever, but I would ask that you acknowledge that your close does not give policy reasons against the text I am proposing.  You don't have say my proposal is consistent with policy, but I would like you to say that your close has not addressed that policy question.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Well the close and discussion weren't dealing with the text you suggested. However, I do think the close tackled the policy issue: any paragraph about his mental health would need to be carefully written to give WP:DUE coverage and avoid WP:BLP issues. I don't think the current paragraph does that, it is hard to balance such a controversial issue in two sentences. The replies by Trump are cherry picked, and don't actually make the addition any more neutral. But, as a closer, I can't single-handedly approve or deny your addition. Bottom line: if you want to include it, I think you'll need another RfC, as tortuous as that may be. CaptainEek ⚓ 17:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, Yes, a new RfC will be required, but I don't want the new one to be dismissed by the old close, that's why I'm asking for more interpretation. Do you agree my proposed text does not violate WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI? Lastly, can you share your opinion on why the proposed text does meet NPOV.  What about simply, "In response to questions raised about his temperament and mental status, Trump has described himself as a 'very stable genius'", as the only text referring to his mental status?  That is the most famous and oft-repeated quote by Trump about the subject. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, The RfC stated The question here is whether we should have something or nothing., and my reading of consensus was at the time: nothing. Now I do agree that the old one was on the basis of of issues like MEDRS and PSCI. The suggested text you left on my talk page does not violate either of those policies. That does not mean I support or oppose the addition mind you, I have no strong personal opinion on the matter, which is why I closed the discussion in the first place. You've asked me to amend my close, that would be a pretty unusual step, especially so long after its been closed. But I can help interpret it: the close and RfC were focused on an in-depth discussion including sources that speculated directly about his mental health, and that is what one of the big concerns was. My close was based greatly on those arguments, such as that armchair diagnosis, as so many were trying to do, was WP:FRINGE. Avoiding such sources and discussion would be a must for any addition. And your addition has done a good job staying away from that.

But as Melanie points out above, and I pointed out in my close, BLP issues remain, even when FRINGE sources are discounted. As I said in my close If Trump were a historical figure, we could write much more on his mental health. But since he's still kicking, we have to be much more precise. Here is where changing consensus might come into play. Since you are seeking to add this section, the WP:ONUS is on you to find support. Since it does not include FRINGE items, it is not totally against my close, and it could be the "carefully worded addition" I suggest. But I am not, and cannot be, the person to unilaterally say if its appropriate. This is where you need broader community input. The last RfC was definite: armchair diagnosis is FRINGE, and the issue needs to exactingly follow BLP. Current discussion should be on what is acceptable under BLP, and ensuring that coverage is DUE. CaptainEek ⚓ 16:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Link to my comments at your talkpage.

When you say "BLP issues remain", would I be correct to interpret that to mean that the community needs to come to a consensus on whether my proposal adheres to BLP, not that you are stating BLP "problems" necessarily remain? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN stated "1) IMO it obviously violates BLP to ... report that other people are speculating, about a person's mental health absent any actual evidence." To confirm, you disagree with this portion of her comment ?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, No, I agree with MelanieN's statement. Reporting on speculation is tantamount to WP:BLPGOSSIP. CaptainEek ⚓ 18:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, wouldn't it be WP:NFRINGE and WP:WELLKNOWN? I'm sure there are other examples, but the speculation about Hillary's health has been included Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m going to step in here. Kolya, you proposed a week ago to include a sentence “Trump’s temperament and mental status have been a regular topic of public discussion.” It was discussed. One IP agreed. Four people so far have disagreed: Jack Upland, Markbassett, Scjessey, and myself. You then pinged CaptainEek, the closer of the previous RfC - the one which established the current consensus not to include a paragraph about Trump’s mental health. You asked CaptainEek whether your proposed text avoids the policy problems they discussed in their lengthy and detailed RfC close. They gave you a detailed reply, concluding my close summarized that folks felt we could not create a neutral, BLP conforming paragraph given the sources available. You asked them repeatedly for clarification, five times now. They reaffirmed that they did not feel your proposed statement would be allowed under that RfC, but you are still challenging. Enough already. Stop badgering CaptainEek, who has been very patient and courteous and has given direct replies to your questions, and recognize that your proposed addition has not received support here. Time to drop the stick. (I am speaking here as an editor, not an admin. If you feel that I am too WP:INVOLVED to object to your line of questioning, and if you choose to continue it, I will be glad to take your conduct to the community for an independent verdict.) -- MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what WP:INVOLVED means when you're acting in your capacity as an editor. I feel that you are being uncivil, perhaps due to clouded judgement as a result of your involvement in the discussion where you previously voiced opposition and displeasure. That can be forgiven, but you must stop. I have not felt that CaptainEek's responses have been direct, but I have been patient because I understand that they must answer carefully to be precise and to be consistent with a very long and contentious RfC close. CaptainEek's latest comment was particularly clarifying for me; I did not realize they felt my proposal was BLPGOSSIP. They never addressed that before. That new policy clarification alone should inform you that your reaction is unwarranted. If you didn't see it, I carried the discussion to CaptainEek's talkpage (I thought I read somewhere that that is the appropriate step to take before challenging an RfC close at WP:AN), where I asked about a different proposal which has not been discussed here. I take your comment, "If you feel that I am too WP:INVOLVED to object to your line of questioning, and if you choose to continue it, I will be glad to take your conduct to the community for an independent verdict." as a threat. Please stop trying to shut down a good faith discussion which happens to challenge something you have fought very long and hard against. I'm sure the community would also appreciate clarification before their time is wasted on a burdensome close review that I hope will not be necessary. Now, there are a couple things still left to discuss.

CaptainEek (Please also notice my previous question above.), I sourced my proposed text almost word-for-word from the A Very Stable Genius book article. If it's not a BLP violation there I don't think it's a BLP violation here. There's also the text from the Stable Genius Act article:

Trump's first use of the term was in response to allegations of mental health problems in the recently published book Fire and Fury, which was followed by extensive discussion of the subject on cable news. On January 6, 2018 Trump tweeted "Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.... I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star... to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!" He has described himself as an "extremely stable genius" or "true stable genius" on several subsequent occasions. On one such occasion he also called on multiple members of his staff to testify that he was calm and under control.

This act of Congress was proposed because, as CBS reports:

"The President believes he is a 'stable genius.' I do not," Boyle said in a statement. "Before voting for the highest office in the land, Americans have a right to know whether an individual has the physical and mental fitness to serve as President of the United States. While it is necessary to take the current President's concerning behavior seriously and I support legislation to address these ongoing concerns, I believe we must also be proactive and do all we can to ensure a situation like this does not arise again."

I do not believe this is gossip. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages should not report opinion and speculation on the mental health of a BLP subject. Even Trump's opponents have toned down this line of attack now compared with 2017. No jokes on stables either, thanks. — JFG 04:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Note: I have posted a discussion about this thread at WP:ANI. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Note that the last question I asked above was why is text (which Melanie is apparently ok with ) at two other articles now a BLP violation when I propose it here. Melanie has now taken me to ANI for WP:BLUDGEONING, i.e., asking too many questions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Is this sentence actually WP:DUE for the lead? The body yes, but the lead?? If it is to remain in the lead it would seem that it should at least be re-worded to "Some of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist". This would more accurately reflect the sources. Also, of all the crap Trump says only a miniscule percentage could actually be characterized as racial/racist so to have wording like "many" makes no sense, especially for the lead. Hoekwind (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It just means that "Trump has made many comments and taken many actions which have been characterized as...". But that's wordy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

See #Current consensus item 30 and the discussions linked there. Not linked there are the discussions that failed to reach a consensus to modify that consensus. This issue has received enough attention and there is no reason to revisit it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Photo of Reagans and Trumps with King Fahd

The photo is pretty clearly an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royalty through the use of a photo taken at a White House dinner hosted by Reagan, to which Trump was merely attending. In fact he's hardly in the photo, standing awkwardly in the back. A reversal of this photo to the former photo of Trump merely meeting Reagan is appropriate. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump is CLEARLY meeting with Fahd in this image. His wife is literally shaking Fahd's hand in the shot. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, Ivana is shaking Fahd's hand, while Donald, Ronald, and Nancy watch on. Where you get the idea that this is an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royalty I don't understand, especially since we have so many other juicy details (first foreign presidential trip, the arms deal Pompeo tried to rush through, etc.). That being said, it is Ivana and Fahd in the foreground with Trump in the background. Shouldn't Trump be more prominently featured in a picture on his page? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The juicy details you are touting are related to Trump's presidency, this is a photo from the mid-1980s. Even discarding that, when Trump's hardly in the photo itself, how is this in anyway a good fit for his biography page? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Trump's hardly in the photo..." - I can clearly see his entire person, and I can clearly see he is involved in the greeting process. I would argue the image is flattering to Trump, as it shows him engaging with world leaders, bolstering his claim of "experience" in such matters. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Him standing at the back of a meet-and-greet is far from bolstering his claim of "experience". Deadpan snark aside, this is a BLP violation and needs removal. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation. Just saying it is does not make it so. Cite the actual part of the policy that backs up your claim or drop the stick. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're done aggressively dissenting with me and telling me to drop the stick, take a gander at BLP#Images whose concern for an image's potential misuse of out-of-context situations is exactly the issue I'm taking up here. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Allow me to aggressively dissent with you. What the image portrays (and pardon me for applying life experience here) is Ivana and Donald Trump moving from your right to your left shaking the hands of Ronald, Fahd, and Nancy. The camera shutter happened to be tripped while Ivana was shaking Fahd's hand. Trump, being the gentleman that he is, allowed Ivana to go first, but that hardly puts him "at the back of a meet-and-greet". We're sorry the photographer wasn't on Trump's side of the lineup, but we do the best we can. This is hardly "out-of-context" when the context is Donald Trump's life (the subject of this article). If you honestly think you have a BLP issue here, take it to WP:BLPN, but stop accusing Misplaced Pages editors of deliberately trying to smear Trump or we'll see you at a different noticeboard. Clear enough? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I never accused anyone of deliberately trying to smear Trump, don't puff out your chest and threaten me with action for going against what you personally want this article to be. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s hard for me to figure what this picture - showing barely-visible private citizen Trump and his wife in a receiving line in 1985 - adds to the article. It has nothing to do with the section where it is included, namely “Wealth”. We already have a picture of Trump as president with the Saudi king in 2017; that’s far more appropriate and relevant, and it shows Trump prominently instead of in the background. I say we delete this one. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. I don't see any BLP issue here. It's just a lousy photo in an article that already has plenty of photos. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I assumed it was more about showing Trump with Reagan, rather than Fahd. Honestly, I don't recall who put the picture in there, why it was put in, or when it happened. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The article has an abundance of images of Trump as president (many of them largely redundant with others). It needs more images pre-presidency, not less. The Presidency article is that way. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This photo wouldn't belong in the Presidency article either. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that it would. The point is that this article places too much emphasis on his presidency, and images are part of that over-emphasis. We certainly don't need to make the problem even worse by eliminating one of the few pre-presidency images simply because it's not a great picture of Trump or because it's poorly placed. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Then please propose (or simply add) some better pictures of Trump pre-presidency. He was constantly in the public eye, there must be hundreds. Something illustrating his TV show, or his wrestling connection, or yes, a picture with Reagan. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. For your browsing pleasure: -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Is that a requirement for opposing removal of this image? I don't see why they should be linked. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you accept replacing it with this image? It shows Trump meeting Reagan in the White House in 1987. Same era, same look, shows how he was prominent and a mover-shaker even then. Look, I'm not against showing him in his pre-presidential days; I'm for it. I just don't think we should have lousy pictures in the article unless they illustrate something vital and there is no other way to illustrate it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I count eighteen images 2016–present. Same (relatively short) era, same look. Why not both? We could do with more variety than two photos of Trump in a tux within 3 years of each other, but that's a separate issue from removal of the image that is the topic of this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Replacing? No. It's a (presumably dime-a-dozen) event for donors, President Ronald Reagan Shaking Hands with Donald Trump at a Reception for Members of The "Friends of Art and Preservation in Embassies" Foundation in The Blue Room. First time I even heard of the foundation but then I don't have any spare $50,000 steel sculptures cluttering up the house. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC) State dinner - that's the pinnacle of social climbing. I enlarged the image slightly and changed the caption. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss and Scjessey: For those of you bewailing the lack of pre-presidential pictures: so go ahead and add some more already! Here are some possibilities from Commons: Trump with Bill Clinton in 2000 , Trump playing golf with Mark Wahlberg in a 2006 Pro-Am tournament, Trump with Dennis Rodman in 2009. We can do so much better than this oh-there-he-is-in-the-background picture. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

We have a consensus to omit the Rodman photo, no reason to revisit. You suggested its removal in 2016. I'll find a place to put Trump-and-Clinton, but Trump-and-Marky-Mark isn't any better than Trump-and-Fahd as an image of Trump (aside from his overweight). Unlike Trump-and-Fahd, half his head is under a cap and the other half is in shadow. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Fine. My comment was in August 2016, before he became president and that aspect of his life overwhelmed the article's photos. On the other hand, this was you yesterday: It needs more images pre-presidency, not less. So I was trying to suggest ways you could deal with what you feel is a lack here. And I was suggesting you could add them as the ADDITIONAL pictures you say you want, not as replacements for this one - which I think should be replaced by the similar-but-better Trump-with-Reagan picture. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. Your argument for removing the Celebrity Golf Tournament article was The article contains plenty of other images of a middle-aged Trump. What has changed, so that you now feel this Trump-in-the-background receiving line picture is essential? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Points taken, but I'll have to think about whether I want pre-presidency photos badly enough to accept a posed NBA-celebrity photo op and an image where he's entirely unrecognizable. Probably not, I'm guessing. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Among the three options, I'd say Trump meeting with Clinton in 2000 is the best if you support including more pre-presidency Trump documentation, particularly since its a pre-president meeting a then-president. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Citing WP:MUG for this photo from the Reagan Library is so far-fetched as to be ridiculous. It was "A night for diamonds and gold," according to the Washington Post who conveniently provided a guest list in alphabetical order. Oh, look, there's Yogi Berra, manager, New York Yankees, and Carmine Berra; the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale and Ruth Peale; Donald J. Trump, chairman, Trump Organization, and Ivana Trump; Rawleigh Warner Jr., chairman, Mobil Oil Corp., and Mary Ann Warner; Sigourney Weaver, actress; Oscar S. Wyatt, chairman, Coastal Gas Corp., and Lynn Wyatt. There don't seem to be a lot of pictures of Trump's earlier career in the public domain. There's nothing wrong with this one, Trump probably had it framed, and why else would he have been invited except for his self-proclaimed wealth. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Who is for it and who is against?

Interesting discussion, but I can't really tell who is arguing to keep this photo and who is arguing to remove it. Let's keep on discussing above, but I can't tell the players without a scorecard. Let's see who is saying what. Who knows, maybe it will turn out we are really all on the same side. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Replace it with a comparable but better quality picture, like the one I linked above. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN: The picture quality (i.e., resolution) is better than that of the one you linked to which seems to be a Russian copy of this image. Since I'm being accused of ignoring the points you brought up, please also see and .Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

When I described it as a lousy picture (which it is), I was talking about the content, not the resolution, but I will happily accept the one with better resolution. About content: The one you all want to keep shows Trump in a crowd shot, unobtrusive to the rear, looking off to the side with a neutral/disinterested expression while his wife shakes hands with the Saudi king. The one I want to replace it with shows a smiling Trump, front and center, shaking hands with President Reagan. Why in the world wouldn't we prefer the Reagan shot? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. I see it is at Ivana's page. That's a good place for it; she is the one front and center. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a great picture, Nancy Reagan modestly dressed and all covered up so as to not offend the sensibilities of the Saudi king, Ivana Trump flashy in skintight dress showing plenty of cleavage front and back. It doesn't say who took the picture, but kudos to him or her for the social commentary. If you click on the picture, you can see that Trump is looking at Fahd. He had condos to sell, casinos to finance. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for now. There aren't many nice alternatives, and I am persuaded by the argument Mandruss made about the need for more such images, rather than less. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove I'm with Melanie. It's clearly not a BLP violation to have a picture of Trump with Fahd and the Reagans at the White House in the 1980s. I agree that it's more flattering to Trump than anything else. But, that photo would go better on Fahd's article, or Ivana's. We should be using photos that have more focus on the subject of this article. Also, it's not clear why that photo is in the "Wealth" section. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep There is no reason to remove it, it does not violate any rules nor is it biased Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Replace with something where he is in the foreground. O3000 (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Replace -- MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove or replace – It does not focus on Trump, and it's irrelevant to the wealth section. — JFG 06:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The image was added—uncontested until now—to the "Wealth" section on October 18, 2019, along with a picture of Trump and Dennis Rodman in the "Apprentice" section. It didn't replace a picture of Trump with Reagan, and the hypothesis that it's an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royalty is pure speculation. (Why would we even need such an attempt when we have the "orb" picture in the Foreign policy section?) "Wealth" is as good as any section to show Donald and Ivana Trump in the reception line of the state dinner then-President Reagan hosted for Saudi King Fahd on February 11, 1985. It's a picture from the National Archives, listed unter the title "State Visit of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia State Dinner Receiving Line with Ivana Trump and Donald Trump in East Room." Trump and wife were guests. The Reagan Library has a video of the dinner on Youtube. At 23:10, you can see Ivana Trump (blond hair, bare shoulders, dark dress with sash) seated at a table. If the camera had panned a little further to the right, it would have shown Donald Trump. When was the last time any of us got to attend a state dinner for a visiting head of state - or had a spread of our opulent 1985 abodes featured in the Architectural Digest? The article features pictures of Trump's star on the Walk of Fame and of a bunch of building's that had his name on them at one time or another. Any of them are better candidates for removal. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is the definitive argument for keeping the image, at least until a better example can be found. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Replace: This article is about Trump -- thus, the pictures in this article should have Trump in the foreground, not hidden in back. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:List of actor-politicians

add a category List of actor-politicians Aero44 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Dubious at best. Perhaps being elected president allows one to be called a politician, but "cameo appearances in eight films and television shows" does not make them an actor. But I'm not familiar with the category; can you show precedent for such liberal use of the word actor in that category?I am converting this from an edit request to a normal discussion, since edit requests are only for uncontroversial changes. In the future please use the "New section" link at the top of this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell it is a list article not a category. So inclusion on the list would have to be done over there. PackMecEng (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Wait I found it Category:Actor-politicians, sorry about that. PackMecEng (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Missed that. The same editor added Trump to the list article today, but I'll stay out of that. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

He's not an "actor", he's a "reality TV personality". Not the same. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

He is an actor; he's played a character with his name, which is different than his roles where he is credited as "self". Additionally, he has been credited as Waldo's Dad, and VIP patron. Clip of his cameos here. Trump is a Screen Actors Guild member. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

IMDb, which is not a reliable source btw, seems to have all of the TV show and movie appearances under "actor" and his late night TV appearances as "self". Yet, he's never "played" anyone but himself. Take Home Alone 2, for instance. That's a clear cameo role, that IMDb lists under "actor". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The only argument against categorizing him as an actor is WP:DUE, correct?  It is irrelevant that most of his acting roles have been playing himself.  You know how Bill Murray didn't really die while filming Zombieland?  That's because he was acting; it's irrelevant that he was playing himself. "Cameo" does not mean "not acting", unless you can find a source.  But Trump wasn't even credited as himself in The Little Rascals; he was credited as "Waldo's Dad".  One reason you knowThe Little Rascals isn't a documentary is that Trump doesn't really have a son named Waldo.. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Koyla. Not categorizing Trump as an actor simply due to most of his roles relating to Trump portraying himself is superficial and irrelevant. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That being said, Trump is not may not be notable as an actor, and figures "not professionally known as actors should not be included" in the category. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump is not an actor. If anything, at best, Trump is a reality tv host. I've not found any reliable source that says playing yourself on a tv show is "acting." I've tried to find reliable sources that describe which of the 5 "acting techniques" Trump uses and came up empty. Trump should not be included. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you found any sources that say playing yourself in a fictional movie isn't acting?  You won't.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh that's a great litmus test! Ya' know, I haven't found any sources that say Trump isn't a prodigy in mathematics either, but since he can sign his name on checks with numbers on them, should we go ahead & put him in that list too? Lol! BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

An odd statement. Have you found any sources that say playing yourself in a fictional movie is acting? You won't find that either. Read the second paragraph at Acting and tell me how closely that describes Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOURCE Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEANTASASOURCE. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

What would you accept as a source?  It would take some effort to find the question directly addressed, but it's so BLUESKY I don't understand the disagreement.  I need a source to say that Muhammad Ali was acting in the film of his autobiography?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, Bill Murray in Zombieland was terrific acting. Trump just gave Macaulay Culkin directions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

So...Trump isn't an actor because he's a bad actor?  I don't get it.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the oil in my car. To call me an auto mechanic would be an insult to all auto mechanics. Ultimately (in my most humble opinion) readers benefit more from more selective categories than from less selective ones. Besides, what Scjessey said below. This is moot. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Bingo. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

But Misplaced Pages editors who read this discussion will benefit from accuracy.  Trump has acted in films; he has performed as an actor; what he has done in films is acting, as supported by RS  That he is not skilled or notable as an actor does not change that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)  

He does have some notability as an award winning actor. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

All this discussion above is basically moot. Per WP:COPDEF, "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics." Trump's status as an "actor" is most certainly not a defining characteristic; therefore, he should not be categorized as such. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Works for me ―Mandruss ☎ 20:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think any reliable sources call Trump an "actor", let alone it being a defining characteristic. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think Muboshgu hits the nail on the head here. If we don’t have several secondary sources calling him an actor, then we shouldn’t describe him as such. I’m not opposed to his brief cameos being described a such in the article, but I’m fairly sure those sources don’t exist which describe him as an actor. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we all agree it would be UNDUE to call him an actor, but where we disagree is whether he has acted in films.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we all agree it would be UNDUE to waste more editing time on this very, very minor issue. I don't care whether or not Trump appears in the list article mentioned at the top of this section (there are plenty of sources supporting his inclusion there), but I definitely think Trump should not be categorized as an actor. These views are consistent with policy. Little more needs to be said, and I recommend we wrap this up now. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya, would you respond to Scjessey's comment about WP:COPDEF? I'm not clear whether you believe acting is a defining characteristic of Trump, you don't understand the meaning of "defining characteristic", or you don't care about following category guidelines. Trump plays golf, but he is not in any category calling him a golfer. Why? Because golfing is not a defining characteristic of Trump. He is in quite a few categories that he shouldn't be in per COPDEF, but the existence of bad stuff is never an excuse for more bad stuff, and to make it one only results in a snowball-effect proliferation of bad stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel like you haven't been listening to me.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Mention of coronavirus in lead, Take 3? Take 4? Take 5?

A few weeks ago, we had an RfC about how Trump's response to the coronavirus should be mentioned in the lead, and it was closed as aborted, but with zero prejudice against future discussion. In particular, people wanted more options about how to mention it. Can we first a) reaffirm a consensus that coronavirus needs to be mentioned in this article, and then b) Get several (many as many as 10) different options? It's still gobsmacking to me that there's no mention of coronavirus in the lead, even though many less significant elements of his life and presidency are mentioned. pbp 00:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I believe, the RFC discussion had no consensus, not even that anything was needed. The close was

No consensus on any of the items listed/the "abort RfC" had a sizable showing. If people want to work towards a more refined list of options through the normal consensus building process and then start a new RfC quickly, that could work. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey: Support some mention of coronavirus in lead

Support

1. pbp 00:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Certainly due in the lead. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Per comment below. This one should be a no brainer and I’m still scratching my head of how people can justify an oppose. Volunteer Marek 07:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
4. A genius said this is worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11, therefore it is surely very important. This personally affects Trump, as he "seems intent on being the public face of the effort against what has become his most serious challenge". This is indeed "Donald Trump's chaotic coronavirus crisis", and the "world looks on in horror as Trump flails over pandemic". starship.paint (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Some sort of mention is necessary. The virus is the dominant story of 2020, and it's a dominant part of his presidency now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
6. No question per WP:WEIGHT. Extremely important.Casprings (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
2. There is no rush to include things and we can wait. After all, Dr. Fauci said at first the estimates were 2 million now it's well under that, and he praised Trump's shutting down flights from China for that, among other reasons. There is no reason to include it at this point. Everything the media is writing now is conjecture. Sir Joseph 02:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
3. . Can't see as this topic is worthy of any mention in the lede of his life story. https://en.wikipedia.org/Boris_Johnson no mention there either, or here https://en.wikipedia.org/Xi_Jinping there are plenty of places his actions regarding corona are well suited but the lede here is clearly not one of them. 18:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Govindaharihari (talk)
4. Oppose a carte Blanche for undefined “something”. That’s had bad results before - until specific proposals are developed we just cannot tell whether ‘nothing’ is better. I think the last RFC observed there was no consensus but offered the thought for a more refined list. I’ve added a quote and link to the archive of what RFC I think is being referred to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The previous discussion was about how to mention the pandemic in the lead. It's pretty clear from the previous discussion and the few editors who have commented in this one so far that a consensus will not be reached any time soon. Secondly, we don't need to reaffirm a consensus that coronavirus needs to be mentioned in this article. That appears to be undisputed, judging by the five paragraphs in the "Coronavirus pandemic" section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is little lede-worthy that can be said in this article about the Covid-19 crisis. Trump's performance in this regard has been approximately par for the course, with some of his responses lauded as successful and some of his responses derided as failure. It is not inconceivable that further developments could bring about something that is lede-worthy. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• some of his responses lauded as successful - That would be what in particular? Source? Please don't cite his own claim that his "China ban" was his great achievement. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Trump's performance in this regard has been approximately par for the course starship.paint (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Really? Trump's "response" has been almost universally vilified, according to around eleventy-billion sources. 100,000 dead Americans isn't "par for the course" in any stretch of the imagination. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• This particular pandemic is unprecedented in modern times, Scjessey. Preventing "100,000 dead Americans" was beyond the abilities of the head of this country. Successes and failures vary by country around the globe but no head of state performed in any way other than "par for the course". This pandemic is unprecedented in modern times. "Preparation" for for the pandemic eclipses the time that Trump has been in office, falling within the auspices of previous presidents and statesmen. But you want to concoct wording for the lede of this article tying "100,000 dead Americans" to Trump? If so, I oppose that. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Cuban missile crisis was unprecedented as well. Poof!
• The article text describes specific actions and lapses that affected the course of the disease in the USA. That's what should be reflected in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose For now as ongoing. I would rather wait until the section in the article is more finished and pared down. Then see if it is fit for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Still an ongoing story, and not specific to USA or Trump. Pandemic data from various countries shows similar outcomes regardless of specific measures taken. Can't single out Trump's responses from any other world leaders', unless we fall into the usual partisanship. — JFG 05:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wording proposals

1. Trump was President during the coronavirus pandemic. pbp 00:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support the way things are going the coronavirus may become the defining issue regarding his presidency 2600:1702:2340:9470:D130:91C3:39C5:9A14 (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support no brainer. Biggest crisis of the presidency so how in the world are you NOT going to mention it? Volunteer Marek 03:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, you guys are putting these !votes in the wrong section. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support the proposed wording: would be a good start. Can be refined later as things progress. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Am I a joke to you? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek and K.e.coffman: - just for clarity's sake, can you also provide your vote in the section above? Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. That's like saying that FDR was president during the Great Depression and then leaving it at that. Also, past tense is premature. There is a good chance that another president will take over before the pandemic is over. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – This says nothing. "Macron was president during the coronavirus pandemic." So what? This line of thought did not gather support in the recently-closed RfC (as proposal 2 there). — JFG 06:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

The key points are that Trump failed to act on the early warnings from his administration's national intelligence and health officials, concentrating instead on the potential harm to stock market indices if he took bold action against the virus. We now have the Columbia University study that quantifies the results of his having neglected the dire threat. The study estimated that had social distancing been implemented even a single week earlier, 36,000 lives would have been saved.

A poll is only effective when there is a small number of alternatives. With, e.g. 10 choices, you'll have 2 !votes for each of them. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Going down the road of including speculation as to whether a decreased death toll would've been seen if action was taken earlier is a bad route powered by hindsight and ultimately WP:UNDUE. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, plus, it's up to the states to apply the rules, not the Federal government, as the NPR article even points out, it took several more days after Trump declared an emergency for the states to start implementing social distancing rules. To pin this all on Trump is pure falsehood and spin. Sir Joseph 02:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on March 11 — an act that had been widely anticipated. Two days later, President Trump declared a national emergency in the U.S. But it took even longer for dozens of U.S. states to order social distancing and shut down business as usual." That's from the NPR article. I wonder if SPECIFICO is going to ask for Cuomo's lead to include coronavirus considering that most of the US dead is from NY and Cuomo is responsible for not closing down NY on time, or the fact that Pelosi told everyone to come down to Chinatown and enjoy shopping, etc. After all, we don't want to be biased in Misplaced Pages. Sir Joseph 02:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The references to Chinese-American festivals and neighborhoods in connection with the importation of disease physically located in China 6000 miles away is a xenophobic deflection. I realize that you are not the one who originated this hateful and irrelevant nonsense, but please don't repeat it here. SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't bring Pelosi or Cuomo into this. They're not the ones trying to pack churches in the middle of a pandemic. Pelosi went to Chinatown in February to try to stop anti-Asian racism caused by COVID-19. And you want to blame Cuomo for governing the state with JFK? This is Trump's page, stick with discussing Trump, the guy who sets the example by refusing to wear a mask (except in that one photo that most people didn't see). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the hero that is Cuomo getting all those old folks killed whilst other governors of other similarly populated states such as DeSantis face no issue of such magnitude, even more funny when you consider the amount of senior citizens in Florida. Of course I'm expressing anti-Democrat sentiment so I'm sure I'll be raising the alarm bells of the other editors as I haven't expressed more "sensible" opinions such as suggesting Trump won't be reelected via weasel words. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is not about Cuomo or Pelosi. Selecting the one sentence in the article that is not critical of the Trump administration's response is cherry-picking. BTW, Trump's repeated tweeted claims about Pelosi's February 24 visit to Chinatown were factchecked and found to be false. Besides, What was Trump doing in February and early March? Golfing, tweeting, and entertaining tightly packed crowds at campaign events in Colorado Springs, Feb 20; Las Vegas, Feb 21; North Charleston, S.C., Feb 28; Charlotte, N.C., March 2 (quote: I think it's very safe). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually the US was fairly timely in reaction to events. The U.S. was early with travel restrictions. The health screening started 17 January per CDC, and further restrictions including a China ban on 31 January. And it is States that control Stay-at-home, as re-emphasised by recent fussing about undoing stay-at-home. Also, this SPECULATION number seems a bit implausible - that between a third and half would not die. Three strikes against this one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

What is this "ban" of which you speak? Think you may be referring to what the source describes as action to "bar entry by most foreign nationals who had recently visited China and put some American travelers under a quarantine", thus ensuring a rush of travel from China to the U.S. by other Americans who were liable to bring the virus with them. . . . dave souza, talk 19:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If social distancing had begun 2 weeks earlier, the study estimates one million cases and 54,000 deaths would have been prevented. In fact, social distancing was widely adopted in the wake of Trump's early March prime time oval office televised address to the nation, in which he made clear that he was not prepared to take decisive action. Reports tell us that the this aroused heightened public concern, especially in the most threatened locations, and that voluntary distancing and closure of businesses quickly followed Trump's disavowal of decisive Federal action. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO That’s off the thread topic, because it’s just not a candidate for lead in this article. This just isn’t something President Trump controlled, is not BLP (his life choice or major event to him), plus that is SPECULATION, plus low WEIGHT, plus not a major part of the article so per WP:LEAD it doesn’t belong in lead. And the U.S was fairly timely so it’s rather unrealistic fantasy. Six strikes against it, not something for this thread. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Less than ten words? Zero due to no candidate? Seems like a nothing. Just a sidenote that the length of any proposal seems should be nothing or little as DUE from article content seems little or nothing. A ‘Trump was President during’ (such as “addressed the 2019 Covid-19 pandemic”) is about the length justified, but that doesn’t seem like much. And that section of content seems just fragmented collection of separate tiny POV whinges so there’s not a big item obvious as candidate for lead coming from content. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: Don’t know about Xi, but it should definitely be mentioned in BoJo’s article. That’s a problem over there, not sure why we should also make it over here. Volunteer Marek 07:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. It is just not something that requires mention in the lede of a political leaders life story, unless it defines them, it clearly doesn't in this or any other political leaders bio https://en.wikipedia.org/Angela_Merkel nothing there either or here https://en.wikipedia.org/Jair_Bolsonaro. Looking, reading all the other political leaders bios there is already a lot of very different style of content in this bios lede, no idea why but I don't support it and I don't support adding more of the same stuff also, as I have said before, there are plenty of places where it would be worthy of reporting but the lede of his bio is not one of them.Govindaharihari (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: - the pages of other current world leaders might not be updated yet. In contrast we can look at historical U.S. presidents for a change. Some people in high places feel that this crisis is worse on the U.S. than the attack on Pearl Harbour or the 9/11 attack. Thus I looked at FDR and George W. Bush's BLP articles, well, the attacks are mentioned. starship.paint (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Star. I don't seem to get these ping things but I do sometimes check back. I see, yes other stuff exists I see. I still feel that it does not belong in this lede, that is just my interpretaion of wp:lede for a bio , what a bio lede should include. There are many more interested editors in this so I am sure a good consensus will arise here, regards. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Regards indeed, Govindaharihari. I hope you get this ping, at least. starship.paint (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The above "survey" is already a ridiculous mess, so I'm just going to restate what I said in the last discussion. I continue to think this is an appropriate text:

After initially downplaying the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, Trump created a task force to tackle the threat, began giving daily briefings on the American response, and signed the CARES Act rescue package.

It accurately summarizes in neutral language what the body of the article says. That's all it needs to do. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey is on the right track: if anything gets mentioned in the lead, it should be a brief summary of any factual actions that Trump took in response to the crisis. No speculation on what he could have/should have done instead. I'd suggest moving this to the "wording proposals" section above. — JFG 06:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That is a straw man. Please review the article text. SPECIFICO talk 06:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm opposed to any inclusion of the coronavirus in Trump's lead as of now, but this proposed one is currently my preferred one if one is to be chosen in the following months. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Religion

I plan to edit the following text in the section about Trump’s religion.

Original: Trump is a Presbyterian and as a child was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan. The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale, ministered to Trump's family and mentored him until Peale's death in 1993.

Revision: When asked, Trump identifies as a Presbyterian, although no evidence has been published that he is now a member of any church. As a teenager he was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, when Trump was in his late twenties. The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale, ministered to Trump's family and was an influence until Peale's death in 1993.

Defense (I write as a former Presbyterian pastor):

In the original form, “Trump is a Presbyterian” overstates the case. No evidence has been published that he is now a member of any church, Presbyterian or otherwise. All that can accurately be said is that he has a Presbyterian background. My revision limits itself to his responses when asked about religion. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/donald-trump-religion/

“…as a child was confirmed”: A photo of the event, dated 1959 makes Trump 13. I changed the wording to the more specific “teenager.” https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/donald-trump-religion/

“In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church….” Trump would have been 25 at the youngest. It fills out the picture of his religious influences to state his approximate age.

“The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale, … mentored him…” The verb “mentored” is too strong. Peale had an influence through his famous “power of positive thinking,” but no evidence has been produced that there was a mentoring relationship. I changed the word to “influence.”

Bookman1968 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Is questioning Trump's religion not akin to questioning his mental state? If he claims to be Presbyterian just say he's Presbyterian. No need to enact a Spanish Inquisition to determine if he's a true believer. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

He also claims to be a stable genius, the best president the U.S. has ever seen, and various other things. That doesn't mean we report those things as fact. Spanish Inquisition? Hyperbole anyone? This looks to me like a quite reasonable attempt to improve accuracy, and I'm fine with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Does it matter that he was confirmed? Also date and Trump's age both = redundant, etc. Really, is religion a big part of the story of his personal, as opposed to political, life? I don't see much RS support for that. He's not the rhinestone Jimmy Carter of the North. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You're being ridiculous to conflate his claims a stable genius, the best president the U.S. has ever seen with his religious personal life. What benefit is Trump going to see from claiming to be a Presbyterian? Please do tell I'm very curious. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't take a ton of objectivity to recognize that religion is very important to a significant segment of the American voting population. Of course he would prefer to allow people to believe he's an avid churchgoer, while being careful not to actually say that. Does that satisfy your curiosity? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't, cause I'm not entirely convinced religion is a big factor in what makes up Trump's appeal to begin with, isn't that why Mike Pence was selected as his running mate in 2016? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Somehow I didn't think it would. You asked about benefit, I answered. It doesn't have to be a "big factor" for our purposes here, a minuscule factor will do just fine to counter your argument against accuracy. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell what you're arguing in favor of here. What the proposal suggests is outside the realm of our jurisdiction. We're not going to be the Spanish Inquisition, as I said, passing judgment as to whether Trump is a true Christian or not. He was confirmed as a Presbyterian, and he maintains he still is a Presbyterian. That's all we need. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

He factually has a professed religion, which is all we can really know about anyone’s faith. It’s OR to try and calculate whether one is a true believer - we should just convey the RS reports here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Quick high-level reaction: All these versions are more or less following Trump's narrative, which is not representative of the weight of mainstream reporting on Trump/Religion. The central fact about his relationship to religion has been his adoption of various fundamentalist and evangelical Christian themes long used by the Republican party to shore us its support among various white demographics in the US South and elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There are a huge number of people today who self-identify as part of a religion, usually based on their family's religion, but do not attend church or even understand their church's creed. There should be a policy or guideline on this. The closest I could find was Religion: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question see (WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." I suppose that if sources refer to Trump as Presbyterian, that's what he is. I don't know of any definitive test for determining religion. TFD (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Today's changes by Starship.paint are acceptable to me, and sufficient for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

No I don't agree with it, and I reverted it cause obviously there's opposition to it presented on this very discussion. Not to mention Starship hasn't even bothered to contribute to this yet. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm also fine with Starship's revision. Bookman1968 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There was once a point in time we'd discuss controversial edits before implementing them, but it looks as if Starship.paint and SPECIFICO aren't too bothered with such procedures. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: - would you educate dear SPECIFICO and myself on what that point in time was? You will have to excuse us, we've only been editing this article from 2016, so we aren't too familiar with the procedures yet. It's good for us that you, having edited this article and talk page from 19 May 2020, are able to use your experience to advise us. Unfortunately, standing on the shoulders of giants, I saw a problem and fixed it, and I will post the paragraph below for posterity, as you want me to contribute. starship.paint (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't value seniority, so I don't much care how long you've been editing this article. There's no point pursuing this further as you're not very interested in a discussion, rather more so in implementing what you want whilst ignoring the opposition of others, and that goes for others here too. What a state of affairs. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: - I don't value seniority either. I'm just interested to know how an account which started in October 2019, and which arrived at this article for barely over a week, would say: There was once a point in time we'd discuss controversial edits before implementing them. Your opposition is noted, you're outnumbered 4:1, and I don't believe you have cited policy. starship.paint (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump identifies as Presbyterian; as a teenager he was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, which was not a Presbyterian church, but belonged to the Reformed Church in America denomination. The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale, ministered to Trump's family until Peale's death in 1993. Trump has described Peale as a mentor to him. In 2015, after Trump said: "I go to Marble Collegiate Church", the church reacted by stating that he "is not an active member" of the church.

1. ^ Barron, James (September 5, 2016). "Overlooked Influences on Donald Trump: A Famous Minister and His Church". The New York Times. Retrieved October 13, 2016.
2. ^ Schwartzman, Paul (January 21, 2016). "How Trump got religion – and why his legendary minister's son now rejects him". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 18, 2017.
3. Kranish & Fisher 2017, p. 81. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKranishFisher2017 (help)
4. Scott, Eugene (August 28, 2015). "Church says Donald Trump is not an 'active member'". CNN. Retrieved May 26, 2020.

starship.paint (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with "Trump identifies as Presbyterian" and the rest, for the record. ValarianB (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Approve Starship.Paint's version as a bona fide refinement of the OP's suggested changes. — JFG 06:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If OP means Original Poster, I am he and I agree. Starship.paint's version does what I suggested. Thanks. Bookman1968 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Approve of Starship.paint's version. It should be reinstated. -- Valjean (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC on page creation for Obamagate

Discussion can be found here.Casprings (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"Popular vote" canard

In the lead section, there used to be a footnote explaining what the "popular vote" means in the context of U.S. presidential elections. Was there a discussion to remove the footnote, or was that just a bold edit I missed? I think it's wrong to say "but he lost the popular vote" if we do not explain to readers that the U.S. electoral process for the presidency IS NOT a "popular vote". Given that readers from many countries are indeed more familiar with a two-round suffrage universel direct presidential election, we should EITHER explain the U.S. process OR refrain from mentioning that Trump "lost" some irrelevant count of votes. — JFG 06:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This 7 Feb edit prompted this 8 Feb edit, which prompted this brief discussion, which wasn't about the footnote specifically. I don't know why I didn't pipe up then, but imo the footnote did more good than harm. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump Cat

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.

Has anyone else seen the Trump cat? Does that have any significance to this article? Let’s give people the chance to give their opinions before removing someone’s comments in the talk page. You can disagree but please don’t delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8A:4102:B3A0:98A3:87D5:3B06:5FD1 (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously, please make a cogent suggestion for article text, backed by citations to reliable sources. Otherwise, your statements will be again removed as trolling per the "Don't feed the trolls" local custom. (which I just violated per the equally-valid "Do not bite newcomers" and "You must feed the trolls" rationales) — JFG 07:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Motion to strike a sentence from the lead section

The lead section states, in its paragraph about Trump's political rise:

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.

I move to strike the second sentence, yielding the abridged text:

Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.

We already state as fact, in wikivoice, that Trump spews a lot of garbage. It is unnecessary to further justify this characterization by invoking fact-checkers and the media for a whole extra sentence. Curious readers can read the linked dedicated article: Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, which would arguably be even more prominent with the single-sentence, straight-to-the-point version. — JFG 07:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This is #Current consensus #35. Please review that discussion and say what warrants rehashing this. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I could probably get behind that, keep it simple. PackMecEng (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump spews a lot of garbage - Actually we don't state anything so vague and meaningless as those words, which sound derisive and subjective. The text that's in the article is the compact way of stating the significant fact. It should be left as is. Once again, please do not make or propose these significant changes to the meaning of the article on the pretext that they are mere tweaks, copyedits, or "trims". You are of course welcome to propose changes in meaning, but they should be identified as such and in most cases brought to this talk page, regardless of whether they are listed in the Consensus panel. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

So, I'm bringing a suggested change to the talk page right here. Your point is? — JFG 16:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"Point" is pretty clear from the foregoing. As you may recall, I am not the only editor who's expressed concern over your changes of meaning in edits not identified as such. Please be more careful with language - calling POTUS speech "garbage" is not constructive and your recent change to the Mueller report bit was an example of an unwarranted undiscussed revision in the guise of a "trim". Clarity will only make your views more likely to be accepted. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose change to stable text. The second sentence is vital to an understanding of the extraordinary scale of Trump's mendacity. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump's executive order

Is there an article on Trump's executive order? For a reaction section this could be added: "President's power does not extend to threatening or shutting down social media platforms. But we should fear this in every country. Worst case scenario is that platforms don't have courage to tell Trump to go away, that they begin to adapt policies to his whims because he is a lunatic," Wales said. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Has the EO been formally filed, yet? ValarianB (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a draft. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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