Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 118

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

→

Archive 125

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,[1] which is different than his roles where he is credited as "self".[2] Additionally, he has been credited as Waldo's Dad, and VIP patron. Clip of his cameos here. Trump is a Screen Actors Guild member.[3] 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.[4]. 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 Wikipedia 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.[5] 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)

Motion to strike a sentence from the lead section

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.

---

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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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)
• Oppose leave it in..it`s relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:78EF:646E:A915:5344 (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Info/wording in this article should be as concise as possible, leaving the detail for the many other articles related to Trump and his presidency. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Supportish, but would have to be specific text and a RFC - I'm OK with redoing the wording to shorter, or merging into one line. But I think that changing the lines made by a prior RFC would need to go thru another RFC with the actual proposed text. Perhaps "Fact-checkers and the media have widely described Trump as having made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency."  ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, you've missed out "academics" in that group, not just "Fact-checkers and the media", Markbassett. There are seven sources in our article (in the mega-reference) describing the academics' comments. For some reason, we never mentioned that in the lead. starship.paint (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • User:Starship.paint - Exclude “academics” as that’s not so universal and also as the meme is more stereotypically media doing fact-checking vs Trump. While it might be interesting details what other subsets agree or disagree or abstain and which were during campaign or which were later ... such details do not belong in LEAD. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Markbassett: There's near universal opposition to this proposal, in case you haven't noticed. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Scjessey you need to work on your counting skills. It was 3:2 majority for change with my post, and now is 6:3 against change. Nowhere near “universal”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Mark, there is near universal consensus on this matter in the English Wikipedia in all topic areas, as well as nearly every one of the hundreds of other Wikipedia projects. I’m pretty sure that’s what Scjessey was referring to. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22

08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus - ???? My curiosity as to how you could possibly believe that “all topic areas” cover this and “hundreds of other Wikipedia projects also seems irrelevant as the topic is *this* article. As for “universal”, to quote The Princess Bride (film) “You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: At the point you made the comment I replied to, the count was seven oppose votes and two support votes (excluding your "supportish" vote). Maybe it is you who needs to work on your counting skills. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Scjessey well now, that’s better than calling it ‘universal opposition’, though mmm JFG, PackMecEng, 1990sGuy and me sure seems like four support !votes. And seems eleven against. Scrolling on small screen might have missed something, if you’re inclined to try counting any more. Though nobody seems much in policy or factual points. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Because these are foundational policies on Wikipedia. I watched a lot of these take form over the years, and it’s what keeps Wikipedia a source of generally reliable knowledge. The opinions of academics, experts, and researchers are generally considered the top tier of RS, with only a few exceptions (I.e., fringe). If you want to refute this across the various venues of Wikipedia, feel free. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose change. Nothing has changed to justify changing the firmly established consensus version. If anything, he's gotten much worse, so expanding/sharpening the wording would be justified. -- Valjean (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment What is the point in this, aside from changing the wording? Or “softening” it, rather? The current wording reflects NPOV. Without question. Like it or not, Trumps’s rhetoric is unprecedented. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus ??? In what way do you think that “reflects” NPOV, the showing of all views in due weight ? This seems only stating a single position, not a mix. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Once again, this isn’t an RfC or local consensus issue. NPOV doesn’t mean what you think it does, which while this is something new editors continually struggle with, but you’re a not a new editor. It means reflecting the views of a preponderance or reliable sources in prose. It’s not possible to argue otherwise on Wikipedia. And NPOV, by extension, certainly doesn’t mean false balance. The sources are clear on this. People arguing a policy based on what the policy doesn’t even say is ridiculous. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so no description of how this single-view “reflects” NPOV. Markbassett (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s not a “single view”. They’re nuanced views held across literally thousands of sources in dozens upon dozens of countries. If you want overcite on this, we can go there, but it’s literally gonna be like 15:1000. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The first line presents a single view in one compound phrase, there is no indication of relative prominence of some other contrasting or alternate view. That’s why I asked what in there you meant by “reflect” NPOV. The second line is just a commentary on the first, explicitly tying it to fact-checkers and media. (Although the conjunction as written could be read as independent sentences instead.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• If there is any change, it should be changing the last sentence to "academics have described this phenomenon as unprecedented for a U.S. president." 7 sources support this statement. starship.paint (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose at least until a rationale for rehashing this has been given. Nothing relevant has changed as far as I can see, and this seeks to modify the result of an RfC that was open for six weeks. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The second sentence is necessary to explain why the first is even in the lead. If we don't cite the supporting evidence and the fact that his behavior is unprecedented, we will constantly be asked "Why is this even in the article? All politicians lie." -- MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The second sentence establishes important context. - MrX 🖋 14:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Obviously, the subject would strongly disagree that his statements were false. Second phrase is needed to explain what it really means. Saying that, I am looking at his false claims related to COVID-19, and this should be noted prominently on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The second sentence is needed to back up and give proper context to the first. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I do not support changing the text. BetsyRMadison (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

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

Trump's executive order

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.

---

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)

No longer a draft. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion for an article is way premature. Right now this is just one of many controversial executive orders he has made. It may blow up into a notable case, particularly if it sparks notable lawsuits, or it may turn out to be a nothingburger. A sentence in the Presidency article is about all it rates right now. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If this is just one of many controversial executive orders he has made then I propose the creation of an article about the controversial executive orders. QuackGuru (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: - I don't see a need for any collection beyond List of executive actions by Donald Trump. Either an executive order will become controversial enough to warrant its own article, or it will not. starship.paint (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this one could become controversial and notable because of the potential for lawsuits and legal challenges. If someone decides to create an article in the future please let me know. This section can be closed and archived. QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Nariyahok (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

i feel like i should edit this to talk more about his personal life and how he has helped this country very much

@Nariyahok:  Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. GoingBatty (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove allegations of racism in lead

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.

---

This shouldnt be included in the lead, as its based on opinions rather than facts: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. "

WP:RACIST states "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist [...] may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject [...]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels

it is surely not widely used to describe Trump and the sources are questionable too, therefore its necessary to remove the line. I know you guys hate the guts of this guy but wikipedia articles have to be written from a neutral perspective SmooveMike (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@SmooveMike: The statement in the Racial views section cites pieces from PBS NewsHour, Agence France-Presse, The Washington Post, Politico, and Reuters.

There is an entire article on the subject, citing the aforementioned sources as well as The New York Times, Fortune, Rolling Stone, BBC News, The Atlantic, ABC News, NBC News, Time, All Things Considered, The Christian Science Monitor, FactCheck.org, The Hill, and many more.

See WP:RSP for where the community has repeatedly affirmed the reliability of these sources. If you think those sources are questionable, you've got the wrong site. If you honestly don't see it being widespread, then your personal Overton window is so far to the right you wouldn't recognize racism if it quoted a segregationist and called neo-Nazis "very fine people." Ian.thomson (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm just going to ignore your last couple of sentences, as I'm pretty well aware of which person I'm dealing with, so I'm not gonna bother. The sources are only one thing. What about the "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"? I think it's safe to say people don't widely use racism when describing Trump SmooveMike (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say you've wrong, otherwise we wouldn't have an article with over 300 references. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I know this is news to you, but there is a world outside of American liberal media sites. So im sorry to burst your bubble, but not everyone in this world thinks of racism when talking about Trump. SmooveMike (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@SmooveMike: You do know that the BBC and Reuters aren't American, right? Seriously, pull your head out of your echo chamber. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

stop projecting pal SmooveMike (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop wasting our time with your ignorance -- cite some reliable sources or go away. No, One America News Network and InfoWars don't count. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, they do. The fact that it's one of many terms used to describe him and thus may seem diluted, doesn't make it a less applicable term. As pointed out there is an entire article full of examples, backed up by references and sources.

Writing from a neutral perspective means that if a person is reliably described as X, then the article includes X, even if it is contentious.

Which sources are you claiming to be questionable? You can't just lay accusations without backing up said accusations - you need to clarify exactly what you think is at fault, not simply by casting aspersions on all sources and claims just because you don't like it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Which ones of the 30 or so sources used in the "Racial views" section, which was the basis for the sentence in the lead, do you think are questionable, and what is your rationale for each one? The sentence was added to the lead in October 2018 after lengthy discussions among numerous editors (I wasn't one of them).Current consensus, item 30, has the links to the discussions. Surely you do not expect other editors to accept your opinion that something is not widely used over 30 sources that are considered reliable? As for I know you guys hate the guts of this guy, nice Trump quote. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC) (aka editor reads-a-lot)

I didnt even know about that quote, and its honestly kind of weird that you do. I'm not American and couldnt give less ***** about Trump, but articles have to be written from a neutral perspective. Like, just read through that entire lead section once. It makes it seem like this guy is the most evil person to ever exist SmooveMike (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The racial problems relating to Trump date from 47 years ago when the U.S. Department of Justice sued him and his father for discrimination against African Americans up until this week. You can hardly expect us to ignore that. O3000 (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but why on the other hand ignore the fact that Trump constantly denies these allegations? Why ommit these infos from the lead? The fact that the article is not editable for new users is kinda telling, too -- SmooveMike (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring the fact that he has to regularly make those denials? Neutrality doesn't mean creating artificial balance between truth and falsehood. Now cite some reliable sources (you're gonna need a few hundred because of WP:DUE) or stop wasting our time. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If you feel like your time is being wasted, then you're free to move on. It is not necessary to add extra sources/citations or whatever, as the info of Trump constantly denying allegations is already mentioned further down the article. The info was just kept out of the lead section for reasons that i cant comprehend. And im pretty sure that no one here has a good reason why it isnt in there SmooveMike (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) And yet almost all of your edits are to rather niche American subjects. Only American conservatives and moderates are gullible enough to think that ABC and NBC are anywhere resembling "liberal." You obviously give a shit about Trump, too, because otherwise you wouldn't be doubting the entire journalism industry (providing no counter sources) over how much of the world assesses the man and accusing us of being haters. Now, given the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and the upcoming Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections, there's the remote possibility that you're a Russian propaganda agent, but your English sounds a bit too native for that. That really only leaves us with the conclusion that you're lying in some pathetic attempt to garner credibility (because your first post is proof enough that you are utterly clueless as to how sourcing works here). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

.................................. WTF 13:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

muss ich hier erst meinen ausweis hochladen, bevor man mir glaubt, dass ich deutscher bin 13:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

User:SmooveMike - you're not going to get far on Wikipedia saying The sources are only one thing. Reliable sources are everything here. As for articles have to be written from a neutral perspective, yes, we must neutrally reflect the POV of the sources, but the end product is not necessarily neutral. That is, if the sources say "happy", we say "happy", we don't say "emotionless". If they say "happy" and we say "emotionless", we have failed to neutrally reflect the sources. starship.paint (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Basically what it boils down to is this: "Ok, but why on the other hand ignore the fact that Trump constantly denies these allegations? Why ommit these infos from the lead?". Can anyone answer this question please? SmooveMike (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@SmooveMike: - because (1) he denies many things, and (2) our leads have length limits. Trump's denied making false statements. Trump's denied racism. Trump's declared exoneration from the Mueller Report when it didn't happen. starship.paint (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

SmooveMike, if you’re going to jump into highly controversial articles on your first day here, you might take some time to read the policies and guidelines and the lengthy talk page discussions detailing the consensus behind the current state of the article. O3000 (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

what other than making a new thread on a talk page do you want me to do?SmooveMike (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, you could accept the fact that after these things have been explained to you, your viewpoint is in the minority, that the current situation is accurate and reliably sourced - and just give it up... Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

"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

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.[6] 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."[7] 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",[8] 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.[9]  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”[10] [11] [12] or “childish” [13][14] ? 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 Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia 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 [from her physician], 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."[15] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 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 ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 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 ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Link to my comments at your talkpage.[16]

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 ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 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[17] 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[18] (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!"[2] He has described himself as an "extremely stable genius" or "true stable genius" on several subsequent occasions.[4] 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," [Democratic Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan] 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."[19]

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

• Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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 [20] [21]) 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)

RFC on page creation for Obamagate

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

Photo of Reagans and Trumps with King Fahd

The photo in question – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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)

Cool down, folks! — JFG talk 06:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The photo is pretty clearly an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royalty. As we've seen, that is "pretty clear" to no one but you; in fact every editor who has commented about that so far has indicated that you were completely off base with that. Use whatever word-quibbles you like, but you accused editors of bad faith with no evidence but a photo and little or no knowledge of this article's editors. Doing that repeatedly would certainly be actionable at an article under discretionary sanctions. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC) As we've seen, that is "pretty clear" to no one but you; in fact every editor who has commented about that so far has indicated that you were completely off base with that. How does me expressing a minority viewpoint completely invalidate my argument? Why don't you start your noticeboard to get me banned from here, since you find my mere existence here so heinous from the outset. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Yes. Assumption of bad faith is "heinous from the outset", particularly in a heated subject area like Donald Trump. If you really think that was nothing more than "a minority viewpoint", you are clearly tone-deaf as to the meaning of WP:AGF. When you haven't a leg to stand on, your best move is to sit down. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Maybe you should practice what you preach and not fan the flames of conflict, but by all means do respond with another platitude. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:03, 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: [22] -- 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 [23] and [24].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 ^talk 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)

Discuss the content, not other users. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We already know how you stand on this matter Scjessey, so I wouldn't call this "definitive" by any stretch of the imagination especially as the argument is tilting in favor of removal/replacement. To claim this photo deserves to stay whilst also saying Trump's Walk of Fame hallmark is a better candidate for removal is tone-deaf to what this article should and shouldn't be documenting, and I'm not assuming bad faith when I say that rather I'm assuming misdirection. What Space4Time3Continuum2x is doing is only acknowledging one side of the argument, and ignoring the points brought up by MelanieN. I remain unconvinced. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Tone-deaf, misdirecting, got it, and thanks. I'll just add that to inciting petty scrabbles. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Good to know, you can add this to that list too. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC) I'm going to hat these last comments. I don't know what pre-existing animosity you folks are bringing to this page, but please keep it out of the discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 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)
• Keep - this is an interesting photo because of all participants. Perhaps the legend should be expanded to provide more context. My very best wishes (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

grammar error

Hello, I just wanted to point out that "According to Trump, they was so close that Cohn sometimes waived fees due to their friendship." is not correct. It's "they were". I know this is a minor detail but I could not change it myself.FDDATHOMAS (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed, thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

President Obama is 6'1" and when trump and President Obama stand side by side, trump is shorter. Therefore trump can NOT be 6'3" 2600:1006:B113:27ED:3C48:98CF:DD7D:88BF (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - No source provided and we do not accept original research. - MrX 🖋 15:23, 4 June 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.[35] In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan.[36] The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale,[35] 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.[36] The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale,[35] 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,[35] … 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 [that he is] 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[25][26] 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.

References

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 ^talk 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)

• Some wording here seems incorrect and the OR is not desireable. President Trump is a Presbyterian - there seems no RS dispute or doubt of that which would require a distancing "identifies as" - and there are sufficient cites and records mentioned to further support it. The OR of "as a teenager" is plausible, but not allowed as it is just OR. But there is plenty of other things that could be said from cites. You could use cites to say that Trump attended Sunday school and was confirmed at First Presbyterian church in Jamaica . And that "attends different churches since he travels so much." And that he has a bible collection.. Or thst Mr. Trump married his first wife, Ivana, at Marble, in a ceremony performed by one of America’s most famous ministers, the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale. His marriage to Ms. Maples was performed by Dr. Peale’s successor, the Rev. Arthur Caliandro, who, like Mr. Trump, was married three times.. He is known to frequently attend church - he'll attend the Episcopal church near Palm Beach, and occasionally go to an evangelical church. There were a large and varied number of religious speakers at Donald Trump’s inauguration. (NYT) Trump donated to First Presbyterian for renovations. and so on .. Hope some of those are usable, cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

References

• @Markbassett: - I would be ashamed of introducing original research. Here's what the source says: ... First Presbyterian Church ... Trump was confirmed there in 1959, around the time he turned 13. Does that not satisfy as a teenager he was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church? When you're around 13, you're a teenager...? starship.paint (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Unless you're 12+1⁄2. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: - that is irritating indeed. "aged 12 or 13" just sounds weird. Care to suggest an improvement? Markbassett? starship.paint (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  What we have is fine. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  User:Starship.paint - just delete ‘teenager’ as OR, and kind of unnecessary and the semicolon looks odd. The other issues that he was possibly 12 (or 11.5) so ‘teenager’ could be wrong, or that ‘teenager’ also means 19 so it’s a vague term is then moot. The age doesn’t seem worth note so much as describing the religious events. Saying he went to Sunday school and was confirmed at the First Presbyterian sticks to facts in cite and seems more informative about his religion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: - in 1959 he would have been anywhere between 12.5 to 13.5. I'll just leave the year in. starship.paint (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint a year also avoids the “teenager”, but I’m not seeing that year in text of cites ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - NYT 'Overlooked' source: It describes itself as the oldest continuously worshiping Presbyterian congregation in the country. Mr. Trump was confirmed there in 1959, around the time he turned 13. starship.paint (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint ah, and that justifies having the NYT cite which otherwise is lesser/superfluous to CNN. Elsewhere I’d seen June 1959, which wasn’t authoritative and still wouldn’t clear up the age without the day. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• A further issue with this section, it lists Peale as his minister until 1993, but Marble got a new minister in 1984. Trump and Peale apparently remained friends until Peale died in 1993 but was not their minister. I just did an edit so someone else can take this one or wait till I get around to it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump identifies as Presbyterian. He went to Sunday school and was confirmed in 1959 at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, which belongs to the Reformed Church. 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. Trump has highlighted Peale's writing on The Power of Positive Thinking, and acknowledged that he learned from Peale to "never think of the negative", and that "the mind can overcome any obstacle". 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.

I thought that since Trump cited Peale as a mentor, one further sentence on what he said he learned from Peale would be appropriate. starship.paint (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

1RR and 24-hr BRD cycle violations

@Urgal:: You violated active arbitration remedies, 24-hrd BDR cycle with this edit: [27] and 1RR with this one: [28]. You should have brought your interpretation of consensus 30 to this Talk page before your first revert. Also, on behalf of the editors involved in the discussions to reach consensus, thank you very much for your comment (the current version sounds like it was written by a person with trump derangement syndrome). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: I just noticed that the editor was blocked for a second revert in this article. It seems to me that that was the fourth revert in a four-hour period, or is my understanding of 1RR (and 24-hrs BRD) wrong? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC) First revert: [29], second: [30], third: [31], fourth:[32]. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

If I'm right, could someone please remove the half-sentence [33] the editor added to the lead? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I would say that's about right. The fact that they ignored both the edit notice and the hidden comment on the page speaks to their lack of respect for our policies. They also violated 1RR at Racial views of Donald Trump [34][35]. - MrX 🖋 14:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find grounds to do that. #Current consensus #30 says to include Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. but it doesn't say you can't BOLDly include something after that. The hidden comment says DO NOT CHANGE this sentence without prior consensus, and extending a sentence is changing it, but hidden comments are informational, not enforceable. So that leaves me with BRD reversion, and I don't feel strongly that the edit wasn't an improvement. The fact that the edit was made by a now-tempblocked disruptive drive-by is irrelevant. Somebody else will have to do this. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It also leaves us with the addition having been reverted twice, by different editors. Be bold, ignore revert, be bold again, ignore second revert, be bold a third time - is that a new WP rule? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC) There's also WP:OPED, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second. Oh well, tomorrow is another day. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Separate process and content. The two reverts by different editors had the same process rationale,[36][37] which, as I said, I believe to be incorrect. No editor has reverted with a content rationale (BRD), although any editor is free to do so within 1RR. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

So you're saying the—by my count—third revert is their first one because the first two count as none? Count me as confused. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Soft and vague process rules are not a problem of my making, and I strongly oppose that approach – precisely because it creates confusing situations like this – to mostly deaf ears. We shouldn't have to spend our time in debates like this. But, worst case here is that you will have to wait 16 more hours to revert with a content rationale. Other possibilities are a different editor reverting before then with a content rationale, or a different editor reverting before then because they see things your way on process. Any of those outcomes would not be met by opposition from me. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss, the hidden comment specifically references the Consensus List. It's clarifying what would constitute a violation of that consensus protocol. I'm not aware of any policy or enforcement principle that elevates that consensus list above the comment that points to the list. The addition obviously should be removed pending discussion, and these distinctions on a talk page strike me as being absurd "angels on the head of a pin" digressions. Of course, some friendly observant Admin could step in and do the removal, sparing y'all from further discussion of this fundamentally meaningless distinction. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The hidden comments are not considered in the consensus discussions and therefore have no enforceable weight. We do our best, but the fact that an editor added a hidden comment and nobody objected does not have the weight of a talk page consensus (I for one didn't object because I didn't expect the hidden comment to be treated as having the same weight as the list entry). Clearly, the hidden comment here imposes a restriction not imposed in the list entry or, more importantly, the supporting discussions. If the intent of #30 was that the lead should say that and nothing more about Trump and racism, it should have said so. If you want to propose an amendment to #30, please do so separately. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My deaf ears were tingling. On the surface I can't see that consensus 30 prohibits the addition of a denial after the words it says should be included. But I also don't see that the distinction between a process revert and content revert is relevant here. A revert is a revert, and the BRD rule says the user must discuss before reinstating. ~Awilley (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Since we now know that at least one Admin will use his discretion to enforce page restrictions without regard to the Consensus List and we now have at least one editor denying the effect of an edit-frame comment pointing to the Consensus meaning, we should either remove that Consensus List or establish whether it has any standing in policy, or enforcement principles. If there's not some such constructive goal and outcome then I am afraid this thread will, to me, read like Alice in Wonderland. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and start that discussion. I predict that you will be shot down in spectacular flames, as I believe the overwhelming view is that that list is vital to order, stability, and continuity at this article. And that, consensus, is the overriding Wikipedia principle. But you are off topic in this thread, and I will not follow you any further down that path. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose removing the consensus list, not worth even asking. This edit was not violating #30. Admins may enforce things other than the list. The list is not a WP policy or WP guideline and has no standing in those. Gets used anyway. While I have had my own issues with the list, ‘nothing’ seems clearly a worse move. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Mental Health

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.

---

There needs to be something here about his state of mind..he`s obviously cracking up..it`s only a matter of time before it`s going to be too obvious to ignore 2600:1702:2340:9470:D928:9254:9253:635E (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The Goldwater rule and our biographies of living persons policies tend to lead to consensuses that we can't comment on a living or recently deceased article subject's mental health without official diagnoses or personal admission from the subject, no matter how many otherwise authoritative and reliable sources say something. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It has been discussed at length, but the current consensus established by an RfC is to not include such a thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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

"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 ^talk 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)

I have restored the footnote. — JFG ^talk 12:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Book content

See "Trump's first ghostwritten book, The Art of the Deal (1987), was on the New York Times Best Seller list for 48 weeks. According to The New Yorker, "The book expanded Trump's renown far beyond New York City, promoting an image of himself as a successful dealmaker and tycoon." Tony Schwartz, who is credited as co-author, later said he did all the writing, backed by Howard Kaminsky, then-head of Random House, the book's publisher.[185]"

The wording is a bit unclear. Did Trump claim he wrote part or most of the book? QuackGuru (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I did a copyedit that should clarify the meaning. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

See "Trump was credited as the book's co-author with Tony Schwartz." It is missing a citation. QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Should be easy to find a citation if you'd like to add one. It's on the cover of the book, so I don't think this is urgent. SPECIFICO talk 15:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

See "According to The New Yorker, "The book expanded Trump's renown far beyond New York City, promoting an image of himself as a successful dealmaker and tycoon." I could not find the exact quote. QuackGuru (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Honorable

Would someone please remove "The Honorable" from the top of the infobox? It's ridiculous on many levels, and it has been edit warred into the current revision. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 12:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Not there for other presidents. Removed. O3000 (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you O3000. That was most honorable. 🙏 - MrX 🖋 12:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It was my honor. O3000 (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I was honored to witness this exchange. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• In the case this is attempted again, honorific prefixes and suffixes are rarely used in the US, unlike the UK (Sir Alec Guinness CH CBE). When we have a monarch, that may change. O3000 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

An optimist, I see. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

As usual my comments are deleted..it is doubtful there will ever be a monarch as long as nuclear weapons exist 2600:1702:2340:9470:E0BD:2550:5D49:E3D8 (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Too many details?

@Starship.paint: I just removed another "too long" tag added by a drive-by editor. You've been adding a lot of material recently. It's difficult to keep up with it, and kudos to your your diligence, but do we really need this much detail in this top article? This one, for example, and all those minutiae on a wall that hasn't been built. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Space4Time3Continuum2x: - well, you see, in March 2020 [38], and even before that, I proposed updating the lead on immigration. It was pointed out that The header *is* dated info, but Work on the body first. I agreed with that sentiment, because the article was not updated on many aspects of immigration. (1) There was nothing in the body on migrant detentions. (2) There was nothing in the body on family separations. (3) There was nothing in the body on the wall. (4) There was nothing on the national emergency on the southern border (5) The section on the government shutdown only had the start, no consequences, no end. Therefore, I simply had to introduce the content. Better that I over-write and you trim it, than there's no content at all. I've trimmed the part you pointed out. starship.paint (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Protest

Is there any mention of the protests ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:69E9:6D24:2624:228B (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

He has called for protestors to be "dominated" and put in prison for a decade so they don't happen again: [39], [40], [41], [42]. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

President of the "United States" as opposed to "United States of America"

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.

---

Should the term "United States" be changed to "United States of America"? As a non-American, I can say that the term "America" or "USA" is used much more than simply "United States" which sounds shorthand. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The "shorthand" is used all over this encyclopedia, including in the titles of United States, President of the United States, and List of presidents of the United States. If any such change were made, it wouldn't be to this article alone. Nothing prevents you from raising this at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), although I wouldn't bet on it going anywhere. One thing is certain – you are out of venue here – so I'm closing this to avoid wasted time. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Bible

@Gandydancer: It's probably Trump's bible, i.e., a leather-bound copy of the Art of the Deal, but you're right. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

“Is that your Bible?” a reporter is heard asking Mr Trump during the moment. He responded: “It’s a Bible.”

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: - The Independent. starship.paint (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

The line referencing Trump's net worth should be removed due to the high unreliability of this information and extreme lack of poof on anything related to his finances or corporate dealing. At least more context is needed to accurately reflect the uncertainty of his financial situation such as listing it as a range of $150 million up to $X or give context to his known hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and inability to generate large amounts of cash when needed. Jonnyrecluse (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See WP:EDITREQ#Planning a request. Given the nature of this article and its subject, there are very few substantive changes to this article that would be considered uncontroversial. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

He is unwilling to reveal his wealth or tax history which is ethically more relevant than how rich he is..this should be in the article 2600:1702:2340:9470:7103:703D:723F:1DC8 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

2600, it's there at Donald Trump#Financial disclosures. starship.paint (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Presidents Age

President is 75 years old 99.70.215.162 (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: He turned 74 today. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 05:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Request on 14 June 2020

The president is 75 years old. 99.70.215.162 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No. 74 years from 1946 (his year of birth) is this year. Do the math.Crboyer (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Post-expand include size limit exceeded

The article exceeds the limit on post-expand include size, again, and has done since mid-day 30 May UTC. Three templates at the end of the article are currently broken, and more will be broken as the article continues to grow. The most recent in the long series of recurring discussions is here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Mandruss - would you know if manually writing citations would help instead of using “cite web, cite news? starship.paint (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, it would. That was discussed in the previous discussion linked above, and was rejected or failed to gain consensus, depending on your point of view. I would still oppose. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  My mistake, it was discussed here at around the same time. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: - hmm. Am I right to say that the main problem is the templates (thus, the references), and trimming article text (without touching the references) will not have much change? starship.paint (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  This limit is 100% about template usage. If you removed everything except templates, PEIS would be unchanged and you would exceed the limit by exactly the same amount. But cite templates are not the only templates used in the article, and some of the templates at the end of article add more to the PEIS than I think they're worth at an article that keeps exceeding the limit. This was discussed in the previous discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: - specifically, exactly which templates would you remove? I think all the "Links to related articles" could go. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hard for me to say. As I said in the previous discussion, I've never used any of that "bottom material" in my 15 years as a Wikipedia reader and editor. I just don't need it. No doubt some editors would insist that it's really, really important to have it, some of them because other U.S. presidents' BLPs have it and We Must Be Consistent Or Readers Will Lose All Respect For Wikipedia (WMBCORWLARFW).

  I've just done some experimentation that indicates that the article's two invocations of {{Navboxes}} consume 21.6% of the PEIS limit. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Count me as someone who finds the bottom navboxes next to useless. Let's just replace it with a link to the template, or invoke the template on a subpage and link to that. Problem solved. - MrX 🖋 02:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Good work Mandruss. I'm thinking we need to nuke those two navboxes, unless we use MrX's solution. MrX, I'm not that technically savvy, could you carry out what you suggested so that we may at least observe the results? starship.paint (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  I would also be in favor of completely removing "Links to related articles". So much of that bottom nav stuff is redundant anyway. I'm going to boldly remove it. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  The result after that edit is: Post‐expand include size: 1893639/2097152 bytes -- Scjessey (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Removing the bottom navbox made no difference in the Post-expand include size. - MrX 🖋 14:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  That is not accurate. It went from 2097151/2097152 bytes and three broken templates to 1893639/2097152 bytes and zero broken templates. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Totally misunderstood what you were saying, sorry. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how you got that result, MrX, or maybe I totally misunderstand what you were saying as well. If you could remove any template without affecting PEIS, it would mean that my entire understanding of PEIS is incorrect, and I would immediately go insane. My temporary test using "Show preview" indicates that the remaining {{Navboxes}} (titled "Leadership roles") costs 161,420 bytes of PEIS, or 7.7% of the limit. After this removal of the other {{Navboxes}}, the article is now at 90.3% of the limit. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  I can't explain it. I fully saved the revision, reopened the article for editing, and did a preview to generate those results. I suppose caching could be the reason for no change to the size, but I doubt it. - MrX 🖋 19:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  The only thing you fully saved was this, which was not a {{Navboxes}}. But even that should have reduced PEIS. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  I said I removed the bottom navbox which is exactly what I did. I removed Template:Donald Trump, which is the bottom navbox about the subject of the article. - MrX 🖋 11:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Further testing suggests that a typical cite template (in this article) costs about 1,550 bytes of PEIS. Thus, the "Leadership roles" {{Navboxes}} costs as much as about 104 cite templates and the other one about 188. And, if Scjessey's removal holds, we currently have room for about 130 more cite templates before busting the limit again. If all of my testing and arithmetic is correct. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss, MrX, and Scjessey: I've also removed the leadership roles navigation box and made a formal proposal below. starship.paint (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: remove the navboxes

In light of the above findings: (1) our article is exceeding the post-expand include size, purely because of templates, which include references and navboxes. (2) The navboxes take up around 290 references' worth of post-expand include size. (3) We've already tried to condense the article, most of the content already has child articles, the latest being: Media career of Donald Trump.

Therefore it is proposed that all navigation templates from the bottom of the article are removed except Template:Donald Trump, as that is the most relevant navigation template to this article. The navboxes removed [43] [44] are those related to U.S. Presidents, 2016 election, the GOP, Time Person of the Year, leading NATO, G8, G20, APEC. starship.paint (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Our actual article content is more important than the navigation boxes. starship.paint (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• I would like to first know how much that would reduce the size. - MrX 🖋 11:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If you preview a page then "Parser profiling data" at the bottom of the window includes "Post-expand include size". If you preview the navboxes excluding {{Donald Trump}} in [45] from yesterday then it currently says "453,926/2,097,152 bytes". This means these navboxes use 22% of the allowed 2 MB:

{{Navboxes
|list1 =
{{US Presidents}}
{{United States presidential election, 2016}}
{{Republican Party (United States)}}
{{Time Persons of the Year}}
}}
{{Navboxes
|title=Leadership roles
|list1 =
{{Current NATO leaders}}
{{G8 Leaders}}
{{List of Current Heads of State of G20}}
{{List of Current Heads of Government of G20}}
{{Current G20 Leaders}}
{{APEC Leaders}}
}}

Mandruss said "a typical cite template (in this article) costs about 1,550 bytes". That means the navboxes correspond to 453,926/1,550 = 293 cite templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support removal of navboxes. Replace them with a link to another page, maybe a new page, where they are shown instead. Maybe keep {{US Presidents}} which uses 6,416 bytes. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per analysis by PrimeHunter. As I mentioned before, bottom navboxes have minimal utility. I also support moving them to a subpage and providing a link from this article. The link should probably be a hatnote at the top, or perhaps in the infobox. - MrX 🖋 12:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal. They have never added any value whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned. From the perspective of PEIS, the act is hugely consequential and gives us quite a bit of headroom for cites now. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. One could argue that we should remove one {{Navboxes}} now, the other only if and when we exceed the limit again. I would argue that I'm really tired of this problem and neither {{Navboxes}} is really needed. With the two removals, we now have room for ~235 more cite templates and I don't expect us to ever need more than ~1,090 citations. (The difference between 235 and PrimeHunter's 293 indicates that we were well over the limit before the removals.) In other words, this solution finally puts this issue to bed. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don’t like not looking at root issues and seeking other fixes. I believe hitting the limit came up before and we only thinned the over-citing, and did nothing else so here we are again. So my concern is another stopgap will lead to again not doing anything else in restraint or pruning, causing another stopgap each time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  If this is a stopgap, I believe it's the last one, as I said above. Before we hit ~1,090 citations we'll be forced to do something like another spinoff or dramatic trimming, maybe even a complete change in coverage of the presidency per #Current consensus #37 (one can dream). Even now, the article's readable prose is at 111% of the size where the article "Almost certainly should be divided" per WP:SIZERULE. That's the highest tier in the guideline, so we're already off-scale large in effect. We are never going to reach 27% larger than we are now, which is what ~1,090 cites approximates. I sympathize with your feeling that this is an easy fix that enables continued bad stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: - all it takes to overwhelm this article would be four more years, if we continue at this level of coverage. We would have to take an even higher level approach. starship.paint (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: What do you propose? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  User:Onetwothreeip for approach, that anything start with looking at the issue causes more and have sought more for ideas on improving things. If I recall, the last time this came up it had the same proposal and negative reactions led to pruning the overciting instead. For solutions - I propose that longer term influencing or more radical ideas should get on the table. I will offer two illustrations. First, that #37 get a revisit thread to ramp up it’s effectiveness and to get more restraint guidance / discussion as a longer term influence. Second - radically, to recognize the divide and contention here and just take a Non-overlapping magisteria approach by cutting the article in the middle. Well, not the middle - divide the first 9 screens that cover Donald Trump’s life from the later 25 screens that cover the last couple years of not-biographically notable items. Otherwise, I could offer up multiple nits of behaviours/content to deprecate but those would be for detailed discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Mark, we've found a solution that works. We got rid of some utterly pointless navboxes. Job done.👍🏻 Time to move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"Trump, D. J." listed at Redirects for discussion

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.

---

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trump, D. J.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 16#Trump, D. J. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: Seems you withdrew the XfD? — JFG ^talk 19:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I withdrew the nomination, as it might be a plausible redirect. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

The muller investigation found no proof of Russian collusion. This article is personal opinion. 2603:9000:E808:E500:C14B:DEC7:F7FF:D04C (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - This is not an edit request. - MrX 🖋 20:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Restored consensus "Trump was slow..."

I have restored the arduously and exhaustively discussed wording "Trump was slow" and removed the overnight change to the weasel attribution of "slow". Anyone who wishes to review the talk archives should bear in mind that users Amorals and Bsubrpime are blocked sockpuppet accounts. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not doubt you, but could you link to the past discussion(s)? Just so we have it all on the table in case there's opposition. ValarianB (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. It's in the edit summary when I restored the language. I didn't realize it would not appear as a link there. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

User:ValarianB re your requested links, I believe you want this diff, which mentioned archive 115 Reducing editorialising and sensational language. In both the diff and 115 wording ‘was considered to be slow’ and ‘was slow’ is brought up. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

User:ValarianB - Not slow - disputes happened on this, see archives 117 RfC: Coronavirus in the lead and 116 Criticism as slow failing V. People have criticized President Trump for downplaying the threat, yes. But it hit disputes over wording it as something complained of versus as an objective fact -- or just a unrealistic wishful thinking re perfection &/or partisan slam. And then whether that leads to describing the evolution of greater attention and success in what areas. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Slow, Markbassett. You can deny it, but the sources say so. starship.paint (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

1. AP When Trump spoke in Switzerland, weeks’ worth of warning signs already had been raised. In the ensuing month, before the president first addressed the crisis from the White House, key steps to prepare the nation for the coming pandemic were not taken. Life-saving medical equipment was not stockpiled. Travel largely continued unabated. Vital public health data from China was not provided or was deemed untrustworthy. A White House riven by rivalries and turnover was slow to act. Urgent warnings were ignored by a president consumed by his impeachment trial and intent on protecting a robust economy that he viewed as central to his reelection chances.
2. NYT Throughout January, as Mr. Trump repeatedly played down the seriousness of the virus and focused on other issues, an array of figures inside his government — from top White House advisers to experts deep in the cabinet departments and intelligence agencies — identified the threat, sounded alarms and made clear the need for aggressive action. The president, though, was slow to absorb the scale of the risk and to act accordingly, focusing instead on controlling the message, protecting gains in the economy and batting away warnings from senior officials. It was a problem, he said, that had come out of nowhere and could not have been foreseen.
3. Kaiser Health News / Politifact: Indeed, it is because of Trump’s slow response to the pandemic that “social distancing” is now required on such a large scale.
4. Politico: The move follows weeks of Trump’s escalating attacks on the U.N. health organization as he has sought to deflect scrutiny of his own administration's slow response to the outbreak.
5. NPR: The U.S. government has been sharply criticized for its slow response to the virus, particularly when it comes to testing.
6. Time At some point down the road, there will be time to calculate the cost in U.S. lives and money of Trump’s delayed response to the coronavirus.

... and the public agrees [46] Nearly two-thirds of Americans say President Donald Trump was too slow in taking major steps to address the threat to the United States. Please don't again only point to the China travel restriction. He was slow on many other things, as the AP wrote above, and therefore overall slow. starship.paint (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not the wiki consensus and sources also say other things - Starship.paint - cherry-picking only proves you could google a few items. Simply put, there are differing views in this area among RS so a blanket statement is not correct and given as wiki voice is inappropriate. One could say ‘criticised’ as summary fact, but not a ‘slow’ as either summary or fact. That would be a false portrayal. And again, despite the thread title see the RFC saying ‘no consensus’ plus prior TALK disputes occurred I.e archives 117 RfC: Coronavirus in the lead and 116 Criticism as slow failing V. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

US economy entered into a formal "recession" in Feb 2020

The article should make note of that.[47] It's obviously of long-term encyclopedic value to note in a president's bio whether a "recession" began under his tenure. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree..I thought there already was one 2600:1702:2340:9470:1C18:AF42:E8EC:3A7F (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree the article should include that in February 2020 the US entered into a formal recession. Maybe something along the lines of: 'February 2020, "marked the end of the longest expansion in the U.S. since at least 1854." The National Bureau of Economic Research reports that "the unprecedented magnitude of the decline in employment and production, and its broad reach across the entire economy, warrants the designation of this episode as a recession, even if it turns out to be briefer than earlier contractions.” On January 31, 2020, the Stock Market plummeted [48] 600 points. In March 2020 U.S. states began restricting activities and closing facilities.' That's just a suggestion, but the beginning of a recession should be included. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through Trump's first three years in office. This ended in February 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic sparked a recession.

added. starship.paint (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• WP:RECENTISM - caution - there is no hurry, no deadline. See WSJ editorial board Op-ed for where the economy was in 2019 prior to covid. It has been a global crisis, so let's not lay this one on Trump without providing the broad picture, which does have encyclopedic value. The daily/monthly ups and downs of the stock market is not acceptable without the broader picture. As for the DJIA, in Nov 2016 it was 19,123.58 and in May 2020 it was 25,383.11 so the gains are still there despite the losses due to the coronovirus lockdown. The crisis is still only 5 months old so we need adherence to WP:PAG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Lede revision discussion - America First

I suggest a change in the lede sentence from: In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. Suggestion: In foreign policy, Trump has pursued a populist agenda termed America First, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Iran nuclear deal, and renegotiating the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Justifications: the language America First agenda is misleading and potentially POV. It is an agenda, and it is termed "America First". That Trump has adopted populism is already established; here is an example. Seems to me the NAFTA renegotiation is important enough to include in the lede in this context. Bdushaw (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - we already mention "populist" in the lead, which is a debatable label anyway. "Nativist" would be more accurate, but honestly I think the existing language is just fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Without staking out a position on the central issue here, I have to note that this comparison you are making between populism and nativism is a non-sequitor: neither label is a subtype of the other, nor are they in any sense mutually exclusive. One can be nativist and populist in their policies, nativist but not populist, populist but not nativist, or neither nativist nor populist. So I can't see how 'nativist' being an accurate description for Trump (if there was a consensus that he is) informs at all on the question of whether or not to describe him as populist. They are descriptors regarding two entirely different political dimensions and the inclusion of one has no real significance to the appropriateness of the other. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that nativist and populist are not the same. My aim was to include a word that describes the nature of the agenda, however, not the man. I've been thinking of the word "label" - true, use of such words as a label, to cubbyhole someone or something, is not encyclopedic. On the other hand, we do use words to describe the nature of things succinctly; it is the English language. So I modestly object to the tendency to dismiss such words as a "label". Populist, nativist, protectionist, nationalist, null, ... agenda? Bdushaw (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

How about instead of In foreign policy, Trump has pursued a populist agenda termed America First... we simply write Trump has pursued a foreign policy called America First...? My main concern was the phrase America First agenda. Bdushaw (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Nativist would be better..it`s more specific therefore more accurate 2600:1702:2340:9470:EC0D:8815:2C75:346 (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comments - the lead should be based on article topic and content - here as BLP is not really the place to go into Presidency too much, and the content doesn't have much so doesn't support going on about in the LEAD something disconnected from the BODY. Minor notes...

- Against calling the policy 'populist' as not accurate -- and it is already said in the prior paragraph about Trump, no need to be redundant

- 'termed' is awkward and unneeded, it comes across as if something said or a word made just for that

- America First agenda in the current should be shown as it is - wikilinked to America First (agenda) America First (policy)

- I'm OK with the addition of NAFTA

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You`re twisting it your way which is a bias statement..trump is the definition of a nativist..he has a problem with Hispanics who just happen to be indigenous..Muslim immigrants..pretty much anyone who he doesn`t consider an American 2600:1702:2340:9470:C598:BF51:6C5C:DBD7 (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

umm, mostly I’m saying BODY content does not support what was proposed for LEAD. Otherwise... if Trump is called populist and the policy called nativist then that would not be redundant. On side note re your comment, Hispanics are not indigenous, and obviously he likes Indian legal immigrants and Chinese legal immigrants and Italian legal immigrants and so on, so just mayyyybe there’s something else there ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Instead of our opinion as to which we like better - "nativist" or "America First" - we should look at how Reliable Sources primarily describe his policies. I'm betting it's "America First" as that's a more accessible, popularly understandable description than "nativist". That's just MHO, I haven't actually searched but encourage others to do so. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Referring to a foreign policy as "populist" is spurious at best, and, at worst, is POV-pushing. As for the term "America First" on it's own, it happens to be the phraseology that Trump himself has chosen for his policy. Also, oppose addition of additional feats of foreign policy; if anything, the sentence is too wordy as is. pbp 15:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Alternate rewording: In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda that resulted in the United States withdrawing from or renegotiating several international agreements. pbp 15:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:LABEL which we really need to move away from as authors of an encyclopedia, lest we become competition for the Urban Dictionary with its double entendres, ambiguities and dubious definitions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - my thinking on the original suggestion has evolved. I've learned more about such words as "nativist" or "populist"; not only would they be a label, they are also vague, ill-defined terms. So, agreeing with others above, I'd rather not have such adjectives. I am still against "America First agenda" for similar reasons - it accepts "America First" as a label, but not everyone agrees with that agenda, or that it really puts America first. I am also reminded that this article is about Donald Trump, not his presidency. So I'd suggest: Trump has pursued a foreign policy called America First that resulted in the United States withdrawing from or renegotiating several international agreements. Leaving out the subsequent list, rather than adding one more. Bdushaw (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Don't characterise Trump's foreign policy at all: the terms "America First", "populist", and "nativist" are vague, as Bdushaw points out. It is also best not to label, but to show rather than tell. As discussed elsewhere, it is in fact hard to describe many of Trump's foreign policy initiatives. His motives are a matter of debate and conjecture. Commentators have opined that his foreign policy ventures have been opportunistic, incoherent, shallow, phony, blatantly self-interested etc. Perhaps "Trump First" rather than "America First"... Therefore I would propose something along the lines of: "Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal." I think specifics are important. It's better not to characterise or generalise. Let readers make up their own mind.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hispanics are indigenous...they are not Spainish 2600:1702:2340:9470:D407:7F46:5DB1:B3DF (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead revision discussion - false or misleading statements

So I went to clean up some of the text in the lede and saw all manner of Cassandra warnings...holy crackers! Obviously this must proceed in microincrements. Here is a proposed change. The lede presently has: 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. What I would like to say is: (In a new, separate paragraph) Often employing the social media platform Twitter, Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The misinformation has been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Justifications: the use of Twitter and misinformation is one of Trump's salient features. I believe Twitter ought to be mentioned, and the issue is important enough to warrant a separate paragraph. I have a problem with the logic of the phrase "statements have been documented" - the statements have not been documented, rather the errors in the statements have been. Since we can't use the "L" word, I propose "misinformation", or otherwise "errors in the statements"; as you see, if we can't use the English language fully, the wording gets awkward. I have also contemplating adding a sentence such as: This misinformation serves to promote his public image or political agenda. (I likely won't be with this article long...this sort of political cesspool is not my thing.) Bdushaw (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is #Current consensus #35.
• I have a problem with the logic of the phrase "statements have been documented" - the statements have not been documented, rather the errors in the statements have been. Discussion of that point can be found at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 95#Alternative wording #3. It never really went anywhere, we were already struggling for consensus on anything, and the current text is what we ended up with. Notably, nobody suggested "misinformation". Now, absent all the other complication, I might support that change. I would like to see other reactions.
• Otherwise, I think what we have is sufficient for the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - the text currently in the lead is perfectly satisfactory, and has been stable for quite a while. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think for a #item Mandruss wants an RFC -- and I would propose instead shortening it to suit the DUE weight and per LEAD since this just isn't much of the BLP article. Down to perhaps the first part Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. and let the fact-checkers or whoever details be covered down in the article body. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  If I want an RfC, it will be because someone seeks to modify an RfC result, not because there is a "#item". Not all consensus list entries represent RfC results. I might support the single-word change statements->misinformation without another RfC, but nothing more substantive than that. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see a convincing justification for highlighting his Twitter lying. If anything, that would dilute the overall seriousness about his lying. Trump lies almost every time he opens his mouth. He lies during press conferences, rallies, photo ops, interviews, and speeches. He even lies using a Sharpie. I assume he also lies in private. Any proposal to change this material should start with a thorough analysis of sources to support it. - MrX 🖋 12:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Twitter tweeters partake in twatperbole - it appears to be the prevalent dialect which comes across as hyperbaric because of all the hot air. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support it`s relevant...he`s a compulsive liar 2600:1702:2340:9470:D407:7F46:5DB1:B3DF (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I am puzzled by the resistance to including a mention of Twitter in the lede. It is a major part of the day for him; I saw one estimate for 18 tweets a day on average, with a record 125 tweets during the impeachment. Also an official organ of government. I've revised the Social Media subsection to give the numbers, and developed it a bit, with citations; revise as needed. Having worked through this process, read the comments of others, etc. I stick to my original suggestion: Often employing the social media platform Twitter, Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The misinformation has been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Bdushaw (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC) (I am now signing off of this article; the whole thing gives me a headache!) Bdushaw (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree his use of Twitter for instant mass communication is unprecedented, brilliant, and lead-worthy. I've recently reviewed some of the coverage of his birther media coverage from years ago. For example, when he said he had a team of investigators on the ground in Hawaii and the public would be amazed what they were finding - very disturbing, it will all come out soon - etc. That is a lie. Media have called it a lie. Why should we avoid saying he lies? Leave that to Eupho-pedia and let's use straightforward language when the sources do. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, I think that's trash talk. Or puff. And possibly a failed prediction. Do you know that Trump didn't send Roger Stone etc to Hawaii?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)