Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:38, 16 May 2018

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

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Presidency of Donald Trump Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2018 Q2 List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections Donald Trump on social media …or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other talk page banners

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LittleRobbinBird (article contribs).

	Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot.

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

Open RfCs and surveys

• #Should we mention the Forbes 400 tapes in the 'wealth' section of the article?
• #North Korea in lead

• v
• e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

RfC about birther claim

At this time, the only consensus is a negative consensus against C. That is, there is a consensus that mention of "birther" claims must remain in the article Donald Trump and not be moved to the article Donald Trump presidential campaign.

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.

Close was requested on 5 May by the prolific close requester, Cunard. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Should the paragraph (or any mention) about the Obama "birther" conspiracy theory be included:

• A. where it is now, subsection Racial views in the "Public profile" section;
• B. a new subsection Birther claims in the "Public profile" section;
• C. not included in this article at all but in the Donald Trump presidential campaign when the rumor was being circulated.

Note: Please do not clutter the Survey section with lengthy comments - use the Threaded discussion section. 03:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding another option which has already gained support from three editors. — JFG 10:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• D. Move the paragraph back to "Political career and affiliations up to 2015"

Survey on birtherism

• D C - it was a campaign conspiracy theory. Trump eventually acknowledged in a statement dated 9/15/2016 that Obama was born in the US. Politifact published the Trump campaign statement, and also showed how the rumor began in connection with the 2008 Clinton campaign regarding Clinton aide, Mark Penn, who sent then-Senator Clinton a 2007 strategy memo advising the pointing out of Obama’s "lack of American roots", but there is no evidence that Clinton or the 2008 campaign took Penn's advice. There was also a chain of emails by Clinton supporters 03:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• D - it was a campaign conspiracy theory. Trump eventually acknowledged in a statement dated 9/15/2016 that Obama was born in the US. Politifact published the Trump campaign statement which linked to the 2007 strategy memo sent by Clinton aide Mark Penn to then-Senator Clinton advising the pointing out of Obama’s "lack of American roots”. There is no mention about Obama's birthplace in the memo. There is no evidence that Clinton or the 2008 campaign took Penn's advice; however, there was a chain of emails being circulated by Clinton supporters that may have started the rumor. The Telegraph published more details. 22:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Since it appears that Atsme is not going to correct the misrepresentation in the above comment - "showed how the rumor began in connection with the 2008 Clinton campaign regarding Clinton aide, Mark Penn, who sent then-Senator Clinton a 2007 strategy memo advising the pointing out of Obama’s "lack of American roots" - I advise people to read the Politifact link she supplies, which shows that the Mark Penn memo did not mention or even hint at anything about Obama’s birthplace, and actually advised the campaign to emphasize Hillary’s “American-ness” but say nothing about Obama’s background. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Better yet, Melanie...The Telegraph provided a bit more detail regarding the chain emails, and the actions that followed, including the statement: ...but supporters of Hillary Clinton, now Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, are largely to blame for starting it. With regards to the 2016 Trump statement, perhaps you know what was meant by "Clinton campaign"? Does it refer to Clinton supporters, delegates, DNC staff, campaign staff, Clinton aides, or what? Sources say it was supporters of Hillary Clinton, so it's best to simply say what the sources say. 20:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• A Birtherism was an inherently and intrinsically racist attack upon Obama at the time, this is borne out by sources I provided in the preceding section. The filer of this discussion is also pushing the fraudulent "Hillary started it!" position, a ridiculous canard that has been debunked and deflated as countless other right-wing conspiracy theories have been, from Pizzagate to Seth Rich's murder. His POV push at the birtherism article has already been reverted. Readers, note that Atsme's attempted edit over there begins with "On September 15, 2016..." for this false claim that Trump has "accepted" Obama's actual place of birth, but sources report that Donald Trump continueed to question the former president's place of birth as recently as the Fall of 2017. TheValeyard (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC) -- This user is checkuserblocked as a sockpuppet account. Alsee (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Not C. It wasn't a campaign gimmick; Trump started that nonsense in 2011 (according to our article). Drmies (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• D: Move to 'Political career and affiliations up to 2015.' The significance of the birther stuff isn't a racial connection, even if there is one; the significance is that it launched Trump's political career. As such, it belongs in a history section, not in a political views section. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• B (keep, move to new section) B or D (keep but not under the rubric of "racism)". That Trump publicly questioned Obama's country of birth—and therefore whether he was qualified under the Constitution to be a president—is noteworthy and should be covered in an encyclopedic fashion. It should not, in my opinion, be located under the rubric of Racial views any more so than the birther claims over John McCain (article link to The Washington Post) when he was running for office. Greg L (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Greg L: Given some of your other comments, it seems that you only want this material out of the "Racial views" header. Does that mean you would support option D as well as B? (Option D had not yet been formulated when you first !voted.) — JFG 01:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Yes. I've struck and revised accordingly. Thanks for pointing out the new option. Greg L (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• D: Move to 'Political career and affiliations up to 2015' which is where it was last time I read this article. His birther comments in 2011 were the most important part of his political life until he officially announced his candidacy in 2015.LM2000 (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• D: move the paragraph where it was originally – Indeed the "birther" story contributed to launching Trump on the political scene. He even acknowledged as much by saying "I believe it made me very popular". Nothing to do with racism, as Trump used similar lines of attack against white candidates John McCain born in Panama and Ted Cruz born in Canada. — JFG 10:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• A, not C per TheValeyard, and Drmies.- MrX 🖋 10:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• A: When you insist that someone is not American, you are saying they are a foreigner. An "other". Not one of "us". This was racism, and was consciously pandering to the racists in society. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

By that logic, Trump also insisted that the very white and Christian John McCain and Ted Cruz were "not one of us" foreigners, and therefore that was racist?? — JFG 11:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear the relevance of this comment. There's nothing wrong with the tag "racist" for any of these insinuations. We already know that "racist" has no rigorous definition, certainly not in ordinary language on WP. It is used just as @HiLo48: says, to point to "others". So yes, the insinuations about McCain and certainly Cruz, and maybe even Mittens' Mexican refugee dad can meaningfully be called "racist". We are not writing as anthropologists or sociologists. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Read my FULL comment. (Something fascinating about Trump fans is that they believe and claim he is smart, but won't concede he's smart enough to make the racists think he is on their side. Politics is complicated at times.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I did read your full comment, and mentioned a valid comparison using your line of reasoning. How can you ascribe racism to Obama birtherism and not to Cruz or McCain birtherism? Oh, because Obama is half-black? That sounds like a racist attitude. — JFG 11:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you truly believe Trump had no idea of the racist implications of what he was doing? HiLo48 (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that Trump probably "made the racists think he is on their side", just like Clinton probably tried to prove to black citizens that she was on their side, by claiming she carried hot sauce in her purse; anything goes to win the presidency I guess. — JFG 11:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• A, not C - Only a racist would push this kind of conspiracy bullshit, and only the worst kind of racist would actually spend substantial money funding activities to keep it in the headlines, as Trump did. For several years before there was any kind of campaign announcement, Trump was basking in the publicity of his racist birther activities. Only later, once he'd established a barbarian horde of racist deplorables, did he announce his intention to seek the presidency. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

My oh my, "barbarian deplorables" within the citizenry, isn't that a racist thing to say? — JFG 11:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"Deplorables" is a race? Did, not, know, that. - MrX 🖋 11:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

As much a race as Muslims, I suppose. — JFG 11:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Islam feelings ARE a form of racism. Folks aren't worried about Muslims they don't know are Muslims. They worry about those who look different. Who have darker skin. Who speak English differently. Who wear different clothes. Who have a different god. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not? Human is a race...so is Nascar. Pile it on! 😊 17:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We should not forget Muslim support of Trump. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• B or D - I've yet to see significant evidence, let alone convincing evidence, that this belongs in a section that, per its heading and its hatnote {{Main|Racial views of Donald Trump}}, is about Trump's racial views. The little actual evidence presented to date has been Atsme, in Threaded discussion, pretty much shooting down in flames many of the sources used there. If Trump cynically and shrewdly exploits American racism for political gain, that doesn't make birtherism a Trump "racial view". Only a racist would push this kind of conspiracy bullshit is simply false. Not C because this passes WEIGHT for his BLP. I will monitor developments as this RfC progresses and my !vote is changeable by evidence. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• A, not C - Whether Trump is a racist or cynically used the racism of others for his own ends is unimportant in my mind. That is, whether he himself is a racist, or it is his racial view that race-baiting is an acceptable tool; this belongs in a section on race. (And the section title can be tuned if it still bothers.) This began long before his official campaign, and was clearly an appeal to racism, as widely covered in RS. O3000 (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  This is the wrong time to offer to "tune" the heading, don't you think? We're not going to add options E, F, and G for heading changes and expect any consensus out of this. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I really see no need for tuning. O3000 (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• C - It was politics, sneaky politics, and it worked because he's president. They say if he attacks Obama it's racist, if he attacks Clinton it's misogynist. Almost as if intentionally the only person you can attacks is a white man. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC) — 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Not A, not C, give it a mention in "Racial views". Well maybe it was both his personal and his campaign's rhetoric, don't you think? wumbolo ^^^ 13:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• A and B not-C not-D C and D would bury this, which was one of Trump's flagship public narratives, aggressively promoted and not mere political or campaign goop. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• B or D. Absolutely not C; the birther stuff was a very prominent feature of his political activity and a main reason for his rise to prominence, and must be in this bio somewhere. I prefer B over D because he was a loud birther both before and after 2015. I agree with moving it out of A, because I can understand how some people would think listing it under “Racial views” implies that he was a birther for racial rather than political reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think this is a strained distinction -- political vs. racial reasons. Few racists base their feelings on any systematic set of beliefs. If one promotes or tolerates racist speech or actions, then there you are. We have no window into folks' "reasons" for or about things. Characterizing individuals on the basis of their association with a group, belief, nationality... is commonly tagged "racist" even though none of those has a simple or entirely robust definition.
• And check this out. It wasn't much of an issue until the mainstream started to worry about it. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• D as per above comments by other editors. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• B then A, definitely not C – Birtherism absolutely belongs in this article, as it was central to Trump's rise as a political figure. There's enough there for it to be a stand-alone subsection, and it's a prominent enough part of his biography to merit one. But if it doesn't get its own subsection, “Racial views” makes the most sense, since it's a racist conspiracy theory, but I think there should be at least a one-sentence mention of it in the “Political career and affiliations up to 2015” section due to the role it played in his political career. -- irn (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• D. Including birtherism in "racial views" is disputable and not directly connected to race. Also, birtherism is a significant part of what brought Trump to political relevance, so placing it in his pre-2015 political career makes sense. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment A great deal of the discussion here focuses on whether Trump's 'fueling' of the birther conspiracy was indicative of Trump holding inherently racist views, or was simply opportunism on his part (essentially the A or D choice). However, most if not all of the 'racial views' section is actually "accusations of racism" - whether of personally holding racist views, or simply exploiting racism for commercial or political benefit is both unclear and largely academic in most instances in the section. I believe the section should be retitled to reflect the actual content (that Trump has been accused of racist actions and of making racially inflamatory comments, and/or endorsing racist positions), we don't know what his 'views' are, we do know how his deeds and words have been perceived. Within such a shift of section title, the material could be included in A, with text that supports that his contribution to the whole 'birther' issue was seen as fueling/pandering to racism. Though on balance, I think the content should be in D, since the significance of Trump's role is the prominence it gave to him as a populist political commentator. FWIW, I find it impossible to think of any reason why this conspiracy theory 'ran and ran', other than that Obama had a black Kenyan father and a 'funny name', and that Trump was content to 'run with it'. Pincrete (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• D: Move to 'Political career and affiliations up to 2015 - The mentions from the 2008 Clinton supporters were taken up by the right after the election -- and Trump was not prominant in this until about 2011. It is not literally racist but rather political, and ties to racism seem POV or posturing political assertions. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• D Where it belongs. That is the context in which RS describe it. (Summoned by bot) Y'all be pinging me as I am not following this and will not see any replies. Also, I do not mind in the slightest being pinged for this matter. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• A: the false claims about Obama's birthplace are absolutely racially motivated. They differ from those of Cruz being born in Canada because (a) that is true (though Trump's conclusions about Cruz's presidential ineligibility were not) and (b) they were made during a political campaign against Cruz, whereas the Obama comments were not for personal gain, carried on for 5 years and had a very racist subtext behind them. (On a related matter, there seem to be quite different details about this topic at Donald Trump, Racial views of Donald Trump and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Donald Trump—I think for due weight, we should have a paragraph or so here, a couple of paragraphs at the Obama article and the topic in full detail under the "Racial views" article.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Bilorv, with regard to your apparent statement of fact, (the false claims about Obama's birthplace are absolutely racially motivated), gosh, I wasn't aware that the weight of reliable sources state that as fact. This surprises me, since I've long held open the strong possibility that the attack on Obama, along with “Lock her up” on Hillary and Trump’s “he doesn’t have much energy,” attack on one of his white male opponents during the primary might all be politically motivated. Please cite the appropriate RSs and I’m rather confident this encyclopedia article will go with that flow. Going with the weight of the RSs: It’s what Misplaced Pages does. Greg L (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• D per User:DrFleischman. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• A/B and definitely not C/D. Per Drmies, TheValeyard, et al. Parabolist (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• A (first choice) or B (second choice). Obvious reasons are obvious. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• A, or, failing that, B. Most modern coverage places it in the context of his racial views. Strong oppose to C and D; C is clearly unworkable because he was advocating it long before the campaign, and D is unworkable because the extensive coverage since then means that it has remained a core part of how his racial views are seen and interpreted by reliable sources.

--Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• C Does not need to be mentioned in this article. It was a campaign gimmick. Any comments made prior weren't notable by the mainstream. This is an encyclopedia, not a court report. Every thing the man ever said is not relevant to this biography. Sovietmessiah (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we omit a lot of what he says, but racism is an issue that should never be ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• D it may have been a political gimmick, but it was a high-profile political one, largely before his campaign started. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• A (and then in order of first preference B and then D -- C completely inappropriate). (Summoned by bot) First off, I think it should be pointed out that the proposition that this fact should appear either in this article or the 2016 campaign article is a classic false choice; both policy and basic common sense dictate that discussion of this topic be included in both articles. Trump was, for more than half of Obama's presidency, one of the most vocal and devoted (and certainly most high profile) proponents of this conspiracy theory, and there are mounds of sources (primary and secondary) which regard it as the foundation stone of his efforts to reinvigorate his previously lackluster political career. And that's how we adduce what gets included on this project and where: by a WP:NEUTRAL presentation of topics, per their WP:WEIGHT in reliable sources--not our own idiosyncratic assessments of importance of the topic matter, which I am seeing a lot of above. This piece of political history is certainly more germane to this article than the campaign article, but it truly belongs in both.

Turning to the issue of where to include the material in this article, I like it where it is. No matter how you slice it, the conspiracy theory was, by its nature, a racial issue. Even if we contort ourselves to try to analyze the assertions made by Trump and other "birthers" in such a a way as to make it not at all about race (and that requires some real rationalization work), it is still about race as matter of encyclopedic coverage by virtue of how the claims were received, embraced, rejected, or interpreted at large within American society (and beyond), as covered in reliable sources. So again, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT. That leans me towards option A. Option B would be fine, though it probably raises the profile of the birther claims a little and would encourage further development of discussion of those claims here. Arguably that is appropriate, but I think its a fair trade-off to have a more constrained paragraph in the racial views section, because it provides better contextualization of the topic matter. Snow 01:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• A, not C per TheValeyard, and Drmies.Casprings (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• B. Deserves its own subsection under "Public profile" entitled Birtherism or Birther claims. Trump was still promoting the lie long after other candidates had stopped doing so, questioned both the short and the long form, etc. (big crowd pleasers at his rallies, I guess). The NYT wrote in 2011 that he was largely to blame for moving the falsehoods from “the nether regions of the Internet” into the mainstream political arena. I also think the title of the "Racial views" section should be changed to "Racist statements"; he habitually disparages entire groups of people as inferior and/or evil. Whether those statements reflect his views or not - who knows? He’s reality TV; he says whatever he thinks will please whatever audience he’s addressing at any given moment and never mind what he said the day before to a different audience. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• A or B definitely not C. Well documented and often discussed. Hence it merits inclusion here. A biography on Donald Trump would likely include a chapter on his Birther and other fringe claims. LK (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

RS refer to it as the birther conspiracy theories. Op-ed try to conflate it with racism, and do a bad job of it. Our own WP article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories states "A number of political commentators have characterized these various claims as a racist reaction..." The sources cited in this article either (a) do not support the claim that questioning Obama's place of birth is the result of Trump's racist view, or (b) that it's racial paranoia to support the birther claim and that the claim is tinged with racism. The ones I checked refer to it as Trump promoting the birther conspiracy theory. I checked the following cited sources:

FN269 CNN reports that Trump admits Obama was born in the US. The only mention of the word racist was in a tweet by Hillary Clinton. Trump's name was not included in that tweet, but it was implied.

FN270 ABC News - no mention of racist or racism - Trump acknowledged Obama was born in US - focus was that Trump had fueled conspiracy theories;

FN271 NYTimes - conspiracy theory - said Trump was suspicious Obama may have been born outside US - nothing about racism;

FN272 NYTimes - conspiracy theory - acknowledged Obama born in US, said Trump blamed Clinton for raising question in first place;

FN273 Fact Check - conspiracy theory - no mention of racism;

FN274 CNN - birth certificate missing - no mention of racism;

I'm not going to list all the sources - I've proven my point. I am truly disappointed in the way this whole birther has been handled. 03:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: All FN's (footnote or citation numbers) above are as of this revision, and may have changed due to addition or removal of citations above that point in the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Atsme, there's better sourcing available than newspaper articles (though the first hits in this batch from the NYT are telling). Here's an RS that says "Many scholars believe that racial prejudice etc." Then there's Cha-Jua, Sundiata Keita (2010). "Obama, the Rise of the Hard Right, Arizona and Texas, and the Attack on Racilized Communities Studies". The Black Scholar. 40 (4): 2–6., and this: Gotanda, Neil (2011). "The Racialization of Islam in American Law". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 637: 184–95.--"The birther movement and the effort to label Obama as a Muslim should be seen as a racial campaign rather than a puzzling outlier movement of Obama-haters. The racial campaign seeks to assign Obama to the Muslim racial category and leave him open to being racially profiled as a "Muslim terrorist". There's plenty more. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Should be seen? And then the author goes on to provide his opinion for why we must see things his way? The majority rejects that notion, Drmies. See the polling results since they seem to play such an important role in Trump articles. Question - while you were searching for academic works that fit the racial narrative, did you search for the opposite narrative? The attempt to ascribe every single problem in the world to race, including terrorism, poverty, white privilege, politics, and on and on, may sell books and increase baitclick revenue but we have to ask ourselves how we measure the influence of race, and where does it end? Far more sources support the bc conspiracy theory than the racism idea because the former boosted political advantage. Our Constitutional requirement that a US president must be a "natural born citizen" has nothing to do with race. Worse yet, blaming racism (and even sexism) on everything demeans the real struggle, especially when used as a political tool. If any of it were true, President Obama would never have been elected and he certainly would not have served two terms. Also keep in mind that as of 2018, whites are still the racial majority in the US whereas blacks comprise 12% of the population. Think about that for a minute. I am hard pressed to believe his election was the result of white racists voting for him but that's what it appears some of these studies are trying to portray - I attribute most to a misunderstanding of what keeps the heart of America beating...not unlike what Richard Rorty predicted in his book, Achieving our Country (1998). I'm not denying there's widespread belief (mostly by liberal thinkers on both sides of the isle) that everything Trump does is racially motivated despite his denials. The bottomline is still the fact that the birther conspiracy theory became an issue in the election, Trump asked questions, he got the answers that satisfied his curiosity and he changed his position about the bc. I don't, and probably never will, understand why there is such an all-out attempt to conflate the qualifications for president (must be natural born) with racism. 16:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like you've strayed into the OR thicket on this one, Atsme. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Ouch, ouch, ouch...day-em thorns! Much better. Wait-a-minuet. This is a TP where we discuss things. Hallelujah! The OR thicket magically disappeared. 18:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• User:Atsme, can you drop this ridiculous nonsense about "opinion"? "Should be seen" isn't an "opinion" in the way that what you seem to think is an opinion. This is someone who did some serious research. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is reliable. It has weight. Your opinion on it has--sorry--no weight at all, because you seem incapable of understanding that not all opinions are the same. Your lack of understanding of how reliable sources work is evidenced on Melanie's talk page, where I am about to comment on another rather silly comment you made. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Drmies, I am trying to understand your perspective and hope you will try to understand mine - after all, different views are what make WP what it is, and it is through these discussions that we eventually get the article right (apologies for preaching to the choir). My focus is more on layout (where the material fits best, rather than what the material says), providing all prominent views per NPOV, and getting the article right. There actually are scholars who disagree with the one you cited, including Vanderbilt professor Carol Swain, UT professor Daniel Bonevac, English professor Mark Bauerlein at Emory, and quite a few investigative reporters like Anthony Gockowski who writes for Campus Reform. While their views contradict what appears to be the prevailing view in the US according to the media and many in academia, we must not lose sight of the fact that similar thinking prevailed in the 2016 election, and look what happened. Quite frankly, we have a healthy number of editors who support the same principals and ideologies as you - and that's wonderful - but that view is contradicted by other views that are held by notable scholars, many of whom are not as vocal (for obvious reasons). Ok, so I grabbed the crappy end of the stick which forces me to wear flame-retardant underwear in an effort to maintain some sense of balance while adhering to NPOV - hey, somebody has to do it - so please be patient and at least try to understand that I approach ALL articles as I would if I was reviewing a GA or FA candidate. 18:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Opinions from professors, mostly with irrelevant degrees != scholarly - they may be scholars but that's irrelevant if they're speaking on things they're not an expert on; and their opinions shouldn't even be spoken in the same breath as peer-reviewed work by experts Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme this is not about "different views". This isn't Crossfire or a debate club. What you are presenting is, as Galobtter pointed out, a false equivalency, as if every opinion is equal. An opinion expressed on PragerU isn't worth as much as an argument presented in an academic, peer-reviewed journal article. By the same token, this has nothing to do with my political principles or ideologies, and it shouldn't have anything to do with yours. The operative principle here is RS, and coordinating considerations come from UNDUE and from well-reasoned arguments for or against certain kinds of sources. I don't cite any blogs, neither left or right. I don't pluck someone's opinion off the internet or from some ideological think-tank, and if I do that person better be relevant and have some authority to speak on the subject. Surely you saw me point to books and journal articles, not even to newspapers. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Drmies I disagree that it is "false equivalency", rather it is WP:YESPOV (my bold underline): Achieving what the Misplaced Pages community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Misplaced Pages aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. You already know what constitutes RS - and it's wonderful that you cited academic sources - but let's not forget, Trump has only been in office a little over a year. We can go back in time before he was a presidential candidate, and you'd be hard pressed to find "multiple" RS referring to him as "racist" prior to his presidential campaign; however, if you can prove me wrong (substantially), I will enter into WP servitude for an entire 2 weeks of serial comma duty. 23:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was hoping we could avoid at this RfC, which should be a simple discussion about where in the article to put the birtherism stuff. It's unquestionable that most of the impetus behind birtherism (a preposterous attempt to claim he was somehow born in Kenya even though his parents were living and attending school in Honolulu) was racial prejudice, an attempt to de-legitimize our first black president. However, that does not mean that Trump's own motivation for promoting it was racial; it's far more likely that he did it out of political opportunism, realizing that it gave him a lot of publicity and a strong support base (and not caring why those supporters were so enthused about the idea). So let's take as a given: saying he supported birtherism is not equivalent to saying he was a racist. That leaves us with a simple question of article content: where should we put the birtherism information? --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. @Atsme: re began in connection with the 2008 Clinton campaign, and also in a chain of emails by Clinton supporters.: Please strike "in connection with the Clinton campaign." Yes, there were emails on the subject among Clinton supporters - whether or not they originated the story or were repeating an earlier claim. There is no evidence at all that the claim originated with, or was promoted by, the Clinton campaign itelf. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I clarified to more closely reflect what Politifact and The Atlantic reported. 17:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

See my comment at my talk page about your "clarification". --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - I fixed it. 20:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Melanie - it started before the 2008 Clinton campaign, but a couple of her campaign people and a volunteer and then her supporters after she did not get the nomination made it significant. Still small compared to when the conservatives got it, and not done by Clinton herself or part of the official positions but they still were a significant part of it's growth. Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for convenience

User:JFG, just to bring the discussion about Cruz and McCain down to the discussion area instead of up in the survey: You keep asking, how could birtherism be a racist thing when there were also doubts about Cruz's and McCain's citizenship? Several differences. First, there actually were valid reasons to doubt the "natural born citizenship" of Cruz and McCain, because Cruz actually was born in another country - Canada - and McCain was born in the Canal Zone. (And before them George Romney, born in Mexico to American parents, in his day a serious presidential candidate.) Second, the citizenship objections to Cruz and McCain were mainly academic and of interest only to political junkies; they didn't ever emerge in public as serious obstacles to their candidacies, much less become persistent and passionate mass beliefs. Why the differences, when there were actually valid reasons for doubting the eligibility of Cruz and McCain, and only fantasy theories for doubting Obama? I think it's pretty obvious why Obama was treated so differently. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If Trump has commented on Cruz or McCain we can mention that too. How could birtherism be racist though if Obamas brother supports while also supporting Trump is the real question . Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Good question, Emir. Just curious... 22:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC) 22:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Because some Blacks can be racists just like some Jewish people can be antisemitic? Pointing out that one, or several, people of a specific race or religion support a racist meme or conspiracy theory doesn't sanitize racism any more than a racist saying he has "black friends" makes that person not racist. Dave Dial (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing racist about his brother saying this. He is Kenyan. OF COURSE he would love to be able to say that his famous half-brother was born in Kenya. So would most Kenyans I suspect. --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe SPECIFICO refers to such comments as having "strayed into the OR thicket". 23:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Caught me. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I acknowledge the point you're making, and clearly the birth issue about Obama resonated a lot more with the public than similar disputes about other politicians. Does that mean that Trump jumped on this bandwagon because of his purported racial views? That is the question we are debating here, and I believe that his "equal-opportunity offending" stance weighs against a racist motive in his case. Just like when he lambasts Hillary Clinton, he is accused of being a misogynist, but when he rips Jeb Bush of Mitt Romney to shreds, that is just ordinary political banter? Sorry, that's biased reasoning. — JFG 05:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

There are two possibilities:

1. Trump attacked Obama by questioning his place of birth because he is a racist/xenophobe.
2. Trump attacked Obama by questioning his place of birth because he saw an opportunity to boost his profile by appealing to racists/xenophobes.

It doesn't matter which of these are true, because both are racially-motivated attacks. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey, if only life were this simplistic, like your analysis, unfortunately it isn't, so I must disagree with your assessment of only two possibilities. --Malerooster (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

JFG, I actually agree with you. I don't think Trump became a birther out of personal racism. I think he did it out of political opportunism. He saw that it got him lots of publicity and attracted an eager band of supporters, so he kept doing it and escalated it. The motivation of his supporters people who believed the birther theory was mostly racial (why else would they insist on believing in such a fantasy?), but IMO Trump didn't care as long as worked for him. That is why I have supported moving this out of the "Racial views" section into (preferably) a new subsection of its own or (possibly) a "campaign" section. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, note the title of the section where this material currently is: "Racial views". That would suggest that it is specifically about Trump's own racial views - not the racial views of his supporters. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"The motivation of his supporters was mostly racial..." Uhm, MelanieN, you might want to qualify that statement because the way it reads now, you're labeling nearly half of the American population as being racially motivated. Presidential candidates are typically highly scrutinized as were Romney, Cruz & Rubio regarding their place of birth. What race is Romney? The real motivation of the people (check the sources) was to drain the swamp of crooked, career politicians...but that got put on a back burner because the focus turned to the FBI, and now there's a demand for a second counsel to investigate that whole deal. Hold on to your wallet!! Voters wanted a nonpolitician, and I seriously doubt color mattered as long as the candidate said what the heart of America wanted to hear. 21:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Atsme, putting your whole comment in small text makes it all but unreadable for a whole lot of editors here; therefore I have restored normal size. If you mean to keep things discreet, and possibly privately addressed to MelanieN, you can go to her talk page. As it stands, your comment is drifting into WP:FORUM territory. — JFG 23:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I meant to say that was the motivation of birther-believers, not of all his supporters. I have corrected it.--MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This goes beyond our mandate as editors -- we're not paid to say "he espoused racist views, but he did it only to please racists because it's not a good idea to call him a racist". JFG's telepathy helmet may be working just fine, but unless RS report as much, it can't be used. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: if you leave out "/xenophobe(s)". wumbolo ^^^ 16:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I disagree. If (1) is true, Trump is a explicitly a racist. If (2) is true, Trump is at least implicitly a racist because exploiting the racist views of others for personal gain is in itself a racist act, is it not? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Melanie. The birther paragraph simply does not belong in the "Racial views" section. The strongest evidence in multiple RS points to his concern over presidential qualifications (natural born citizen). In fact, President Obama himself, speaks about the bc issue. While there are some scholarly articles published in journals that attribute racism as the motivation, there are multiple RS that dispute it. I don't know of any RS that can say unequivocally that Trump's research into the bc was racially motivated. Let's move the paragraph to a relevant section (as noted in the RfC), and we can always consider adding a line or two with in-text attribution cited to a scholarly source indicating the belief that Trump's birther question was racially motivated. 20:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

exploiting the racist views of others for personal gain is in itself a racist act, is it not? It is not. It is shrewd, cynical, opportunistic politics. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think they are mutually exclusive. The Southern strategy was a means of securing votes, but was inherently racist as it stoked the beliefs and prejudices of white southerners. TheValeyard (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an unsupported opinion, like everything else in this debate including my own. Even if "true", it wouldn't warrant placement of birtherism in a section of Trump's BLP titled "Racial views". ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

We are talking about his VIEWS; that's what the section is called. If he exploited the racist views of others, that is cynicism, not personal racism. Or to be more precise, since there was obviously a strong political motivation for him to do so, we have no way of telling if he was also motivated by racism or not. Similarly, he accepts the support of white nationalists and tries to avoid criticizing them, but that does not make him a white nationalist. A politician needs to accept support where they can find it; that often means accepting the support of people with whom they strongly disagree. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence he strongly disagrees? What makes you think he does? HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

There is precious little "evidence" on either side of this debate. Where's yours? Melanie's comment is loaded with reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

While I may not always agree with MelanieN, I do agree that her comments are customarily "loaded with reasoning" as Mandruss pointed out. 23:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Atsme; The birther paragraph simply does not belong in the "Racial views" section.

There is no clear-cut consensus when looking towards the RSs on this one.

Nor can we debate Trump's motives and what we believe had to be on his mind, and establish our own editorial policy. Why? Because as ad hoc all-volunteer amateur authors (wikipedians), that would be original research and we mustn't pretend we are qualified to depart from RSs and forge our own unique take on the matter.

McCain's Constitutional qualifications to be president was raised by his detractors but gained zero traction from the mainstream media (article link to The Washington Post) so the issue was dropped. Some have written here that Trump can't do the same thing to Obama that was done to McCain and raise the Birther issue because Obama is Black—and that fact couldn't have been lost on Trump—so it must be racist. Such arguments are a classic example of a person's race becoming an issue because some people want to make it an issue.

Absent a clear picture from a good majority of reliable sources, we have no business running off on our own declaring the “Birther = racism.” Greg L (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps birther ≅ racism or birther ⊆ racism. We often have a problem with terms related to racism as the area is broader than most think. I don’t think we would have any difficulty finding many RS that consider birtherism related to racism. O3000 (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If the preponderance of the RSs say so, then we should follow, Objective300. It will be interesting to see how such RSs authoritatively explain how John McCain can claim those old birther objections over his running for office were racially motivated. Greg L (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

There was never a claim that McCain lied about his birthplace. Only a false claim that it mattered that quickly died out. The claims that Obama was born in Kenya lasted for a decade, was believed by tens of millions, and included that he lied about both his birthplace and religion. It still hasn’t died out, with Arpaio saying he will call for an investigation when he becomes Senator. O3000 (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh. I didn’t know Arpaio's two cents and those of people other than Trump ought to influence Misplaced Pages's take on the matter while we try to establish a logical, unbiased, fair, encyclopedic treatment on the subject. Such endeavors normally call for merely looking towards the weight of truly reliable RSs for guidance. If I understand you correctly now with your 11:40, 9 April 2018 post, Objective3000…

You seem to be saying that if politicians, who since Roman times dug up dirt on anything regarding their opponents, claim that someone wasn't a natural-born citizen because they were born in Panama—and that much is true and the opponent identifies as White—then that's *not* racist; and if a political opponent claims their opponent was born in Kenya, which is false, and the opponent identifies as Black, then that's racist. I'm not so sure about that, and here's why…

When logic and points such as yours are allowed to be introduced into this discussion, it necessarily introduces bias; like when Trump said “Lock her up” over the mishandling of classified materials. Amongst his detractors, he must have been—and still is—a misogynist to utter such words. This is why we look towards the weight of truly reliable RSs, without cherry picking them. This is because attempting to debate such matters here is necssarily and strongly influenced by the individual biases of the volunteer editors who inhabit this venue. Our busying ourselves by imagining what must have been going on in Trump's mind is beyond the purview of wikipedians because it doesn't even rise to the level of Original Research.

Please leave your citations about what Arpaio said and will no-doubt say in the future out of this discussion as they don't interest me; he's not an RS. Greg L (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Citations of RS that are about what Arpaio said are valid. If Arpaio's antics are widely discussed in such sources, they may be significant content for various WP articles per WP:WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this WikiPedia or a TDS party in a "cry closet." Personal opinion on matters such as "racism" and "misogyny" have no place on WikiPedia. Both "racism" and "misogyny" have very clearly defined definitions and unless you can demonstrate examples where DJT has show a pervasive pattern of either, the whole sections need to be deleted. Do you have examples where DJT refuses to place women in prominent positions of power in his business and administration? Of course you do not so any accusation of "misogyny" are utter bullspit. Same goes for the overused liberal tag of "racist." Do you have any instances where DJT claimed white people are superior to other races? If not, then the whole racism issue also must deleted. Some people need to decide if they want Misplaced Pages to be an impartial and authoritative source, or a part of the DNC "echo chamber." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdotp (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bdotp: Yeah, okay. We'll get right on it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, WP:NPA is still policy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I'm aware of that. What's your point? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

First, our personal opinions are irrelevant. We use WP:RS and they are abundant. Secondly, “racism” does not have a clearly defined definition. As our own article on racism says: Today, the use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition. You can find the cites there. Third, can you please be civil? TDS party in a cry closet and DNC echo chamber are not helpful. O3000 (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Health effusive revisited

More SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but not worthy here, if anywhere in WP. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a developing story, one of a long list of incidents in which misinformation and undue praise were deemed necessary by individuals who had official interactions with Trump. I bring it to the talk page now in the hope that in the future editors will be less credulous of obviously anomalous behavior such as was discussed in great length on the occasion of Jackson's bizarre charade following POTUS annual check-up. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing worthy on inclusion in an encyclopedia article. It's inclusion would be politically motivated. Sovietmessiah (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

But the point of that story is that the health report was politically motivated. Should we remove comment on the health report for that reason? HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, the firs round of editors who crafted the text relating Jackson's ridiculous post-checkup performance bought his act hook line and sinker. That's not NPOV and it's not encyclopedic. Fortunately for Misplaced Pages, it now should be obvious that article text that blindly accepts Jackson's pandering performance needs revision. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece by a restaraunt critic. If the piece isn't encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion, then it's UNDUE in this article. Perhaps if the author's opinion turns out to be correct after Jackson has served, then it will be DUE. Just wanting to add opinions/predictions like this one are what make me *sigh*. 14:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You best redact your smear of Mr. Bruni. Some folks might believe you. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I may not feel this is DUE; but Bruni has been a White House correspondent, a war correspondent, chief of the NYTimes Rome bureau and has written three NYTimes best sellers. I really don’t think it appropriate to label him just as a restaurant critic. O3000 (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be a good lead in for in text attribution "Former restaurant critic and White House correspondent Frank Bruni said..." PackMecEng (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, there is no smearing going on - unless you're referring to the material you want to add to the Trump bio. And why do you think working as a restaurant critic is a "smear"? And why are you being so defensive? You're arguing over whether or not an opinion that is nothing more than a prediction and criticism of a very capable individual as a potential failure before he's even had a chance. That is what I consider pointless criticism based on WP:CRYSTALBALL. Please do not hat discussion just based on IDONTLIKEIT. This discussion is highly relevant to your proposal. 16:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

PS: I just now supported my statement by adding the NYTimes source that states he was the chief restaurant critic, which I mentioned instead of the others for brevity and because he was the "chief". 17:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In speaking about a political issue, we don’t say “A saxophonist said:…." when refering to President Clinton. Bruni has an established career in politics including a stint as NYTimes White House correspondent and author of a best seller on George Bush. Why would you say: “It's an opinion piece by a restaraunt critic?” Clearly your attempt was to belittle his experience related to the subject. O3000 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect, O3000 - you are relentlessly misrepresenting what I've said. Please stop - the diffs that clearly demonstrate your misrepresentations are accumulating through no fault of my own. 23:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

How can I misrepresent what you said when I quoted it directly? This is the third time in a couple days that you have falsely accused me of misrepresenting your edits. And, I’m not the only one that you accuse of such. Your accusations are totally false and gross violations of CIV and BATTLEGROUND. And what's really absurd is that I stated that I'm not even in favor of adding this. I'm agreeing with your position. Yet, you still insist on making obviously false accusations. O3000 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Atsme, User:Objective3000 - mentions of WP:DUE bring to mind that this section is missing the larger WP:WEIGHT of health coverage before the exam, of late 2017 many many MANY pieces floating (false) speculations about Trumps health or fitness to serve. To properly serve WP:DUE seems there should be mention of them. I'd suggest just before the 2018 Ronny Jackson mention as it would also give context to the exam and why he was getting odd or leading reporter questions. Would it be better given as an overall summary or as several lines for the slightly varying phrasings of diet/health/mental state ? e.g. dailystar "Is Donald Trump ill?", Independent "Aides terrified over Presidents mental health", Esquire "Is Donald Trump crazy" book release "Dangerous case of Donald Trump", Mirror "Fresh concerns over Donald Trump's health after uses both hands for glass of water", Vice "13 town halls on Trumps mental health", USA Today "President Donald Trump: How is his health", NBC news "Donald Trumps mental health", Chicago Tribune "Donald Trumps diet is bad for Americas health", the August bill in the house that would require Trump to undergo testing (Zoe Lofgren D-CA), Mens Health "Is Donald Trump the least fit President in Generations", NewsMax "Diet Coke habit prompts Doctors warnings".

Though I'm also thinking this all might be better at the Presidency article as examples of media coverage as showing typical representations in DUE weight seems the obligation. (Negativity and hyper focus of being under microscope and any possible negative interpretation having ready play in today's internet bubble-markets seems the situation, but simply representing the coverage is whats sought.) Thoughts ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the sources you mentioned are not RS. It’s not our responsibility to counter tabloid crap. There have been some RS comments on possible health concerns of both candidates, mostly during the election. Hardly surprising given their age, and claims by various people. Not certain what you are proposing. But, as far as I know, neither the WH doctor or a candidate's doctor are required to be fully forthcoming about a medical report. And, we shouldn’t touch armchair diagnoses – particularly in the mental arena. O3000 (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

O3000 - BBC, NBC, USAToday, Reuters, Chicago Tribune, House .gov site, etcetera are RS. Though it is kind of tabloidish rumor-mongering I'm struggling with if the heavy WP:WEIGHT of coverage regarding health would be better said as an overall or as different sub-topics. And of course to do so without crossing | Consensus 21 to omit any opinions of his psychology by outsiders. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

His alleged psychology. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - You did not propose content, but note that is an NYT Opinion rant from someone not medically qualified nor really about Trump so will not pass as an WP:RS for the Trump BLP in general or the Trump health report specifically. Bruni is also not prominent enough in his own right to make his rant have coverage WP:WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

One needn't be an MD to recognize when a competent MD is acting like a buffoon. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO To corect your entering view : This is more a recurring story, one of a long list of incidents in which misinformation and undue ranting were deemed necessary by individuals who had media access. Your bringing it to the talk page hopefully assures that in the future editors will be less credulous of obviously anomalous behavior such as was discussed in great length on the occasion of media circus prior to POTUS annual check-up. Really, I take the daily rant at Trump or Ivanka wearing a pantsuit or Melania wearing high high heels as comforting that they do not have any actual disaster to cover so are doing filler. But every mornings blurb are just not all going to be WP material. Over & out Markbassett (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about Trump's pant suit or whatnot. Maybe you read too many HuffPo or Rachel Maddow blog pieces. Actually I think Trump's suits are rather well-made. He and Manafort are two of the best dressed public figures we've had in quite a while. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You can be "best dressed" and health issues. The first in an opinion or a subjective award, but the other is a fact if true. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

?? Mark Bassett seemed to be saying that the principal criticisms of the Trump presidency relate to trivia and tabloid exposes of irrelevant factors. I presume you agree with me that is counterfactual. I wasn't able to relate your comment to the claim that because we are not MD's we can't see that Jackson was acting inappropriately at the press extravaganza celebrating Trump's pinch 'n' poke at Walter Reed. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO I would say again that your original post needed redirection -- this Ronny Jackson opinion piece is one of the significant percentage of coverage for the Trump White House which is on trivia or criticism and speculation over trivia, misinformation and ranting or snarky humor and general media circuses that are over nothing much. (Particularly on the internet, fad stories on a given day about Melania wore high heels, or that Ivanka wore a pantsuit, or that Donald took a sip of water using both hands, or that his hair was flipped over by the wind, or about a tweet typo Covfefe, or about counting things the opinion writer thinks are bad or false in his latest speech or since inauguration.) Your hope that future editors will be less credulous I suggest be less credulous about individual media pieces. If it's not picked up by a lot of others it will not have WP:WEIGHT for here. I'd prefer it should be 'had major effect on his life' to go into BLP. In the meanwhile - I think this thread is done, yes ? Markbassett (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I am guessing you are not aware of the previous discussions of this. My view is that the Ronny Jackson show doesn't belong in the bio article. It might be DUE in the Presidency article. However at the time of that event, various editors were so thrilled by Doc's performance that they included it here, without the context that it was political clowning and not medical information. Of course if Trump does actually live to 200 minus a cheeseburger, that view is subject to revision. So perhaps you and I do not disagree. How would you feel about deleting the last sentence that deals with the brain probe, since it's basically a response to a straw man unstated presumption that POTUS is malfunctioning? Whether to add that to the Presidency article (if it's not already there) is a separate issue, I think. SPECIFICO talk 11:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, persistence that is met with fatigue and silence does not equal acquiescence. Have you thought about giving it a rest? When threads get this long and convoluted, dropped and restarted, it's difficult for people working 55+ hours a week to keep track of what, precisely, you want.

If I recall correctly, this all began with a proposal to add a single sentence describing the physician's gushing manner of describing Trump's health. If that's what this is still about, we need encyclopedic language if we are to include this. The adjective(s) you suggest we use are important here. Fawning? Gushing? Lavish? Over-the-top?

Clearly, Jackson's press conference garnered press attention and critical commentary for his tone. But then, the popular press (read: advertisers) treat Trump and his wife far differently than the Obamas; Michele was on the cover of pretty much every woman's magazine at the checkout line whereas Melania, who is indisputably a very attractive fist lady and would normally be expected to frequently grace magazine covers is as rare as hen's teeth at the checkout stand. So if we are to buy into the idea that “boat loads of press coverage necessarily equals an encyclopedic topic that must be covered,” then lay it on us please, once again; what, exactly, in example text are you proposing? Greg L (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Greg, your essay has nothing to do with what I have said or the topic at hand. My proposal would be to reduce the undue coverage in this article by removing the bit about the cognitive function exam. What do you think? SPECIFICO talk 12:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Your response at first seemed reality-challenged in light of how you started this thread, which quoted a NY Times op-ed piece as follows:

More SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but not worthy here, if anywhere in WP. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a developing story, one of a long list of incidents in which misinformation and undue praise were deemed necessary by individuals who had official interactions with Trump. I bring it to the talk page now in the hope that in the future editors will be less credulous of obviously anomalous behavior such as was discussed in great length on the occasion of Jackson's bizarre charade following POTUS annual check-up. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I note this in particular: This is a developing story, one of a long list of incidents in which misinformation and undue praise were deemed necessary by individuals who had official interactions with Trump. That's the problem with long threads that pop up over and over, assuming people can remember what's on your mind. It happens on Misplaced Pages. Your mentioning of Jackson's bizarre charade didn’t help things either.

So it appears then that you object to where we state as follows:

I agree with what the others, particularly Markbassett, wrote here. My own two cents are this: An op-ed piece by a restaurant and movie critic, who voted for Hillary in 2016 (and his “voice caught” and “eyes grew wet” as he recounted the experience of voting to his mother) and who objected to the effusive manner by which an experienced physician (and rear admiral in the U.S. Navy) delivered an objective fact (a test result) does not impeach the objective fact; scoring 30/30 on the MCA test is a rather binary conclusion that means Trump has well functioning cognition.

That the POTUS has no impairments with the cognitive functions he uses to formulate thought is an altogether different issue from the thoughts he formulates, which are often controversial and polarizing. But that’s all an entirely different issue from what’s you’re complaining about; the two sentences are true according to the RSs, and are on-point. Greg L (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that particular source adds much, but we can find better sources than it, surely? If we're talking about mental health, this seems more useful - a bestselling book written by multiple experts in the field. If we're talking about Ronny Jackson's physical evaluation, here's an academic paper on the subject, which concludes that "To answer the question in the title, “Is Trump's Cardiovascular Health ‘Excellent’ or are there ‘Serious Heart Concerns’?”, Mr. Trump's cardiovascular health (risk profile) was excellent for a man his age in 2016 but worsened by 2018." --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Greg, there are many other sources that discuss the preposterous and unprecedented extent of Jackson's fawning, extra-medical, dissembling sycophancy. My view about the cognitive test is that it would not have been given (if indeed it was) except for the opportunity to rebut the sort of press speculation that is not of itself encyclopedic. So including the test results, unless we also discuss that background, insinuates an inference about the reason for the test. And I don't think that press speculation belongs in this article, so I think the test and purported results should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 20:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

We have more than just press speculation, though, don't we? In addition to the book I linked above, take a look at this, which highlights it and notes both the conclusions and the limitations of the MoCA test. I think that the book combined with that paper is sufficient to devote a sentence to the concerns about his mental health, to note the test, and finally to note the test's limitations. Additional coverage of it is here, here, here, here, and here. I think we should absolutely note the concerns about his mental health (but cite them to better sources than op-eds and to WP:PRIMARY press speculation.) Then we can mention the test score and the discussion of what it means, probably with one sentence for each of those three points. --Aquillion (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This would be a valid alternative. To explain to our readers why Trump requested the exam (do RS in fact make the connection?) and tie it to the bit that's in the article. I think we also need to help our readers evaluate whether any of Jackson's public display was credible or whether the whole thing was done to please Trump and quash concern. As to whether it belongs in this bio or in the Presidency article, that's another question we should eventually address. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Both you guys are coming perilously close to original research; it’s as if you start with the assumption that “Trump says things that are shockingly non-politically correct so he must be nuts, so it’s our duty as volunteer wikipedians to get the Truth®™© out.” The trouble with pretending wikipedians like you and I are muckraking journalists bravely deciding what the citizens really need to hear is that such a process on Misplaced Pages necessarily introduces biases. Aquillion provided this link to the Vox, which actually concluded the article with this:

That's enough said about that. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Feels like you are not paying attention Greg. My proposal was to remove the whole thing precisely because it refers to an unwarranted and undocumented suspicion that Trump is impaired. No OR in that. Then you quote Dr. Friedman, who supports my view. So do you agree we can remove the sentence about cognitive function testing, etc? SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand precisely what you are proposing. The totality of quotes from Dr. Friedman is shown above in my cquote; I wouldn’t characterize what he said as equaling what you have been saying here—not by any stretch. To be clear, the statement in the article with which you disagree and want removed, is as follows:

Your question is this: “So do you agree we can remove the sentence about cognitive function testing, etc?”. My answer is, no. I am in general agreement with what Markbassett and Atsme have stated above. For some reason, Trump perceived the need to prove his mental faculties, asked for a cognition test, received one, scored 30/30, and a Navy rear admiral and experienced physician attested as much a press conference. Your arguments here questioning the legitimacy of that statement because of “Jackson's bizarre charade”—and even whether the the test was given at all—do not find traction with me. Greg L (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is fascinating, but I'm not sure why we need to mention Trump's physical at all in the article. I doubt any other biographies would include information on a physical claiming that the person is healthy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

In a related new story . But, I agree with Power that none of this belongs in the article. O3000 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. So can we remove the 2018 exam altogether? SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking this must be what bludgeoning ⚒ looks like, SPECIFICO. Why are you so fixated on his health? He hasn't fallen once that we know of, he hasn't needed assistance up or down stairs, he manages to squeeze his fat arse into a limo without assistance, and he's been dancing with the porn stars so he's clearly not dead, yet. I'd say the discussion is over - done - fini....💤😴🛌. 01:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Think again. Stay on topic. "Over" for you, yes -- if you have nothing constructive or responsive to add to the thread. Doc says take 2 aspirin and work on something else. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we mention the Forbes 400 tapes in the 'wealth' section of the article?

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

Since it seems like everyone has presented their arguments and there are requests for an RFC... this discussion led to debates over whether we should include this edit, which covers tapes by reporter Jonathan Greenberg that he says shows Trump lying in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. The main argument seems to be over whether the topic is WP:DUE (and, therefore, whether it would be a WP:BALANCE issue to include or exclude it.

Some relevant sources: , the initial article; secondary coverage in these: --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Include as proposer. The heavy coverage more than adequately demonstrates that a single sentence devoted to this is not WP:UNDUE; beyond that, we already mention that Trump was on this list, and covering that without at least noting a high-profile controversy related to that inclusion is clearly a WP:BALANCE issue. The existence of the tapes is not in doubt (Greenberg has produced them), and their interpretation with regards to Trump lying about his wealth to get on the Forbes 400 does not seem to be particularly controversial, in the sense that no sources have contradicted Greenberg's interpretations and several have unambiguously reported it as fact. This is a high-profile controversy related to Trump's wealth that must be mentioned in the appropriate section of this article to ensure proper balance with the (sometimes primary-sourced) figures already there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include per what I said above. Notable controversy, there isn't a "old stuff" relating to events 30 years ago clause in NPOV for disinclusion, and by the same token would disinclude all his old net worths. As Aquillon says, noting that he is on the list without the doubts/controversies associated is contrary to NPOV, representing all the significant viewpoints there. We should also include all the other doubts about Forbes's figures, which we currently present without comment. E.g, in 1982 his net worth was actually 5 million$ not 100 million$, according to this same article. Doubts about forbes figures were also reported in the 2005 nytimes source which we use the in the article. There is also a lot more coverage about his..very high, ludricuous..claims, as in Trump Revealed, "Yet his claims were questioned, time and again.". We do include the claims, but not how they are questioned - we mostly present the point of view of that of forbes estimates and himself without all the questions about them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include This should be included we but only if we keep it an appropriate size and mention that it is just an allegation so far. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include - as noted earlier => definitely of public interest and reliably sourced - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include: WP:RS. Would be a WP:POV decision not to include.Casprings (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include The proposer's first sentence hits the nail on the head. Greg L (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - edited audio tapes, no proof of dates or authenticity, purportedly dating back 36 34 years when the reporter was in his early 20s. He was an ex-writer for Forbes, so I guess he moved up the ladder 40 years later to become a blogger for HuffPo? Nah. It's just another allegation scraped up from the bottom of the barrel. It has no encyclopedic value.  03:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, can you at least provide a reliable source to back up the claim that these audio tapes have been edited in misleading way? (Also not sure what the reporter's age has to do with anything) Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sound editorial judgment is all that's required - tape 1 clearly isn't the full conversation - it's a 1:47 sound bite - no proof of who called whom, there's no recorded date only Greenberg's word, no way to confirm what the conversation was actually about much less in what context it was taken, it ended as abruptly as it began. The same with the 2nd tape - a 1:07 sound bite - all you know is what Greenberg reported. As for Greenberg's age - he brought it up in the WaPo article: I was a determined 25-year-old reporter, and I thought that, by reeling Trump back from some of his more outrageous claims, I’d done a public service and exposed the truth. I must've missed his exposé while reading his online resumé. In the WaPo report he claims innocence - that he and his Forbes colleagues thought of it as "vain embellishments on the truth"...until 34+/- years later? Meh! And where does his story show up? Front page? No - it's in a Perspective column (opinion piece) that WaPo defines as: Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences. Poorly sourced for contentious material about a BLP (circular reporting counts as one source, and the opinion piece is the primary). He's barely getting any baitclick mileage out of it in the anti-Trump markets - zero lasting encyclopedic value - poof, the buzz is already gone. 03:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. So, razor sharp acumen and unassailable logic of some select wikipedians could be used when the RSs don’t seem to catch on to these drop-dead obvious truths, Atsme. I suppose I might be able to go along with that. Moreover, your proposal seems to actually embrace the last of Misplaced Pages’s Five Pillars (Misplaced Pages has no firm rules), though this concept of yours seems to run afoul with the second Pillar (pertaining to citing reliable, authoritative sources) as flawed as the RSs can be at times. Greg L (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As long as observers realize that my razor sharp acumen and logic is also supported by policy including NOTNEWS, V and NPOV, and the guideline that defines RS. 21:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include - notable and reliably sourced. Also, including the fact that he was on the list, while deliberately ignoring the controversy about how he got there is a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

So you think this comment should be included because an ex-Forbes reporter is a more reliable source than the President of the United States? Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)g

That is a terrible argument, on multiple counts. 1. We're not excluding Trump's viewpoint, nor saying that the report is more reliable than POTUS (strawman), but merely including all significant viewpoints per NPOV 2. Trump's history of exaggeration and falsehoods is well documented and yuge. The ex-forbes reporter, meanwhile, is a investigative journalist who would be fired if he repeatedly lied etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude. This seems extremely trivial. Everyone already knows that Trump puffs himself up at every opportunity. His buildings are the greatest, his TV ratings are the highest, his poll numbers are the best, etc. This is just more of the same thing. This is useless trivia at best. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that it is so common mean we have to address it in his biography? Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include - notable and reliably sourced. Trump's primary claim regarding his qualifications for becoming president was that his wealth was proof of his competency. Each and every lie he told that is subsequently exposed is therefore notable. 71.46.56.59 (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - trivia lightly covered tabloid piece, simply not a major action by Trump or significant effect to his life that would make it suitable for BLP. Out of 10 M google for trump I got 39 on this and they mostly seem listed above. Most of those cites are tabloids or unknowns -- skipping past all those kgw, zeenews india, gq, esquire, ktla, hugoobserver, uproxx, pasemagazine, ... whats left? Seems a USAtoday CNN and CNBS is all thats left, 'Greenberg says in a 20 April WaPo piece', so apparently not significant effect or coverage. Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: We should be nice to Donald Trump because if he likes what he reads about himself on Misplaced Pages, he will be more likely to be nice to Misplaced Pages. Therefore I believe this unreliable personal attack on Donald Trump should be strong exclude. This unreliable personal attack accomplishes nothing. Brian Everlasting (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell if this comment is meant as a joke or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I wouldn't include it in the form presented in Special:Diff/837621017, but I'd support including it as a caveat to the sentence He appeared on the initial Forbes 400 list of wealthy individuals in 1982 with an estimated $200 million fortune, including an "undefined" share of his parents' estate. The WaPo reference claims that he was reported to have a $100 million fortune at that time. The NYTimes reference says Forbes gave him an undefined share of a family fortune that the magazine estimated at $200 million. The fact that Trump attempted to inflate his reported wealth in Forbes magazine shouldn't be controversial, and if we're including those numbers, we should mention it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the tapes are relevant but there are other portions even more relevant, as you say, as a caveat. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude 30+ old allegations are encyclopedic or relevant to this article. Sovietmessiah (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include. Obviously good content about a notable situation. Properly sourced documentation of one more of the deceptions he used to create an undeserved reputation. That it reflects poorly on him is not the fault of the sources or editors, but of Trump himself. The fact that it's a combination of deceptive acts makes it even more notable, and not a passing, insignificant, and trivial factoid. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include. Fascinating insight that speaks to the kind of person Trump is. Well-sourced, interesting content that is relevant and notable. What's not to love? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include Sources show that it is relevant and notable. LK (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude per UNDUE. Secondary coverage only repeats claims from the original reporting. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thereby proving it's worth mentioning... Drmies (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude as this isn't suppose to be a tabloid newspaper. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Could you explain the relevance of that statement to the sourcing and significance of this content? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include This content is well-referenced and the fact that the incident is 30 years old is actually a good thing for a BLP prone to problems of recentism. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include Heavy coverage in RS. Puts the net worth claims already in the article in context. Certainly doesn’t run afoul of recentism/notnews. O3000 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude – Undue old story, apparently unearthed only to smear the BLP subject. Who cares how rich he ever pretended to be? I remember him stating his net worth was "over 10 billion dollars" when he started his campaign. The whole world laughed it off, and professional estimates oscillated between 3 and 4.5 billion. I guess that's "over 10 billion" in typical Trump-speak… — JFG 10:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include. Properly sourced documentation of one more of the deceptions he used to create an undeserved reputation. That it reflects poorly on him is not the fault of the sources or editors, but of Trump himself. The fact that it's a combination of deceptive acts makes it even more notable, and not a passing, insignificant, and trivial factoid. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: You already voted above, on May 2nd here. You should strike one of your votes. PackMecEng (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we give a presumption of accuracy to claims made by Trump?

This has been bugging me for a while, and I am very close to opening a discussion at WP:RSN. A lot of controversy has been created at one time or another by claims made by Trump on one subject or another. A few spots above this thread is one where his alleged wealth was being discussed and a lot of the figures cited came back to claims made by Trump himself. The problem that SPECIFICO comes close to stating is that if Trump were a news source, or for that matter just about anyone other than the President of the United States, he would have been flatly labeled as an unreliable source a long time ago. Obviously we can't ignore him or fail to cite him when he makes important statements or claims. But I am wondering if we have not reached the point where it is time to state the obvious. Donald Trump is not a reliable source and we should treat any statements or claims made by him as in some way questionable unless they are obviously non-controversial or they have been independently confirmed by reliable sources. Of course that opens a whole can of worms. How do we qualify unverified claims without calling the man a pathological liar or in some other way violating NPOV? Maybe I should should move this to RSN? Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Simple answer, Ad Orientem...use in-text attribution because tweets would be considered a primary source. If it's published in multiple secondary/third party sources, include the text with inline citations. Unless Trump has been professionally diagnosed with verifiable medical records to be a pathological liar, it is still "opinion" regardless of how many RS speculate about it. We have already determined with this president, and those before him, that what some consider lies others do not perceive to be lies...and that is why in-text attribution works best, and is the least disruptive. 23:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Fact is not opinion. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

But Atsme, there is still such a thing as objective truth. Back in the old days "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" was clearly and correctly called out as a lie. It may be more difficult to ascertain the truth of "I didn't mock that disabled reporter" (I'm paraphrasing), and one would have to judge for oneself whether his excuse, "Despite having one of the all-time great memories, I certainly do not remember him" is true or not. That's where we attribute. But "I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering"--there is no other way to describe that as a lie, or else we must blame it one some massively faulty memory, a flaw in "one of the all-time great memories". As for his wealth, we must ascribe--to him, and the reader will just have to beware, or to Forbes or whatever, and the reader will just have to keep in mind that Forbes measures in certain ways, etc. But this whole "others perceive as lies" thing does not work here, since we're not others. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. His words should be taken at face value. He is a primary source in regards to his presidency. Sovietmessiah (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

President Trump lied more than 3,000 times in 466 days. CNN. Need I say more? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes you do, because the question here is about how we present information. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I would never state something as fact that he said. It would always be "...according to Trump". But that's not singling him out. We do the same for "...according to Comey" or "...according to Clinton" or whoever. I can't think of a single person that meets our definition of a "Reliable Source," that is, having editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. (On the other hand, when we do a "Trump said" something proven false, we should absolutely follow with the debunking.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course; we go by what RS say, especially fact checkers. We can't "assume" he's being truthful. He has never had a reputation for honesty. We must compare his statements to verified facts found in RS.

He is only reliable for what he says, not for the reliability of what he says. The difference is significant. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Those are the easy ones. The difficult issue is what to do when e.g. Ronny Jackson dissembles or Mnuchin, or Sara Huckabee? They are lying because Trump adopts a false narrative so that a true statement would be out of place, appear incorrect, or be punished by him. This is not me speaking, that's what RS tell us. Making the issue worse, the mainstream press is reluctant to write stories one after the other saying that the Administration today lied about A B C D E... I was starttled to see NBC News' Andrea Mitchell hold up an NSA statement on Iran yesterday evening and call it a lie. She had plenty of documentation for that, but the press generally cannot or will not be so clear about the daily events. Who thinks Trump actually took the Montreal Cognitive Test? What makes you think so? Would Jackson's report have been any different even if Trump couldn't pass the test? So why administer it? Did they in fact administer it? Dana Milbank has his doubts. So does Frank Bruni. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is an interesting question. All politicians exaggerate, and a not small percentage outright lie. But Trump appears to be nearly unique. In his own book, he calls it “truthful hyperbole”, which seems to say that he thinks hyperbole can be truth if you don’t expect people to believe it. Only, he clearly does want others to believe what he says and has built his empire in this manner. WaPo presents 3,000 misrepresentations: Anyone that listens to him sees constant inventions and contradictions. He clearly makes stuff up. I would not refer to Nixon as a constant liar as his lies were focused in one area (OK two major areas) and all politicians tend to break the barrier between truth and lies. I would not call Trump a pathological liar, as I’m not a psychologist, and Trump’s lies seem to work for him; which would appear to contradict the definition of pathology. But, the simple fact that he has an unusual relationship with veracity, as WP understands it, is problematic. I’m not seeing how we treat this as different from any accused person. We state the facts as per RS and attribute responses. But, there is the problem that he also hires people and has the power to spread false scenarios. I’m open to suggestions on how to treat an unusual situation on current events. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I didn’t bring up Nixon to suggest this was a one party problem. I could easily blather on about lies told by LBJ and JFK. But, the current situation is a unique problem in my mind. O3000 (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It can only be done case by case...we simply cannot throw a blanket over the top of what politicians say and call them pathological liars. Politicians are like horsetraders - imagine a horsetrader trying to sell you a skinny horse, saying he's a good'un, but doesn't 'look' real good right now. You buy the horse thinking you can put some weight on him and make him look better, but when you get him home, you find out he's blind. I believe our current policies address the problem adequately - use in-text attribution. I see no benefit in attaching either an "unreliable source label" or a "pathological liar label" on a sitting US president considering the rise in his approval rating, the media's dislike for him, the growing partisan divide, and the fact that he has focused on his campaign promises. I think we need to let the facts speak to his character; let our readers make their own determination of whether or not he's a pathological liar or just ego-exaggerating. It is not our job to judge what he says as a lie or the truth, so why even bring it up? We haven't done that for any of our past presidents. Even the George Washington Cherry Tree myth has been debunked. 😢 Case by case...in-text attribution...until there has been a medical or scientific evaluation/determination after examination and testing, and was determined by medical professionals to be a pathological liar. 01:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)  

• "Should we give a presumption of accuracy to claims made by Trump?" Of course not, on two levels. No individual person is a "reliable source" except for the fact that they uttered or wrote certain words. We need reliable, secondary published sources discussing those words in order to analyze them or characterize them. On a deeper level, Trump is a special "edge case", because his falsehoods are so frequent and so thoroughly refuted by highly reliable sources. On a side note, Atsme, George Washington did not tell that cherry tree tall tale. It first appeared in a hagiography published after his death. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Cullen - that's why I linked to the story. My mention of it was for the sake of levity. 02:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump's dubious relationship to truth and facts

Since we have a lot of editors here who are interested in this subject, here's a small portion of what I've got, nicely hatted so it doesn't dominate. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

My goodness, BR...Trump calls the media fake news, and the media strikes back by publishing as many Trump lies as they can find. Trump is all about baitclick media made easy via his tweets and other avenues of public exposure , unlike no other president before him, which may explain why he has 10x as many published lies. I don't agree that a blanket statement about him being a pathological liar is DUE - habitual, perhaps, but not pathological - and only on a case by case basis. I would not oppose inclusion of his most significant/notable lies that have long lasting, encyclopedic value - something readers can readily associate with him, like some of the lies associated with past presidents. In the interim, can we please balance some of the speculation and journalistic opinion by adding more fact-based statements per DUE & BALANCE? See this BBC article, Donald Trump: How the media created the president. David Sillito did an excellent job explaining how Trump's victory was "...a brutal kick in the teeth for those loathed pundits, insiders and "righteous mongers". But it was also a humiliation for the thousands of journalists who had spent months trying to warn the public about Donald J Trump." It clearly has long lasting encyclopedic value as it relates to Trump's victory - not excuses but facts about how the media failed to notice the "strangeness" about Trump's speeches and "...how much of what he says refers to issues and topics that are not part of the mainstream news agenda." IOW, media got "Trumped". Sillito asked an important question in his BBC article as it relates to "alt-media" using Breitbart as an example: Bannon is a man who also shares all the right enemies. But how do we know people believe him any more than other parts of the media? Ahhh...the million dollar question; the answer to which no one can say for certain, but it addresses the hatted articles you listed above. The fake news narrative and attempts to shake Trump voters from the trees is very POV, and factually unsupported. We can say some reports have indicated that more (alt-right than alt-left readers, or whatever) read fake news...and include inline attribution...but it is still a bipartisan phenomena. Whether or not fake news actually influenced readers remains unsubstantiated, excluding opinions and speculation. Science tells us people read the National Enquirer for its entertainment value.

In 2010, Oliver Burkeman wrote an article about the National Enquirer in The Guardian in which he opined: ...but even if you buy it, you don't necessarily believe it. It's entertainment. Whether it's true or not is largely beside the point. What he said is supported by scientific/academic studies as evidenced by the links in this NYTimes blog titled Science Explains the National Enquirer by John Tierney. Example: ...positive information about nonallies was relatively uninteresting and unlikely to be transmitted, whereas positive information about allies would be shared enthusiastically. Those articles and their cited "links/sources" identify how they arrived at their conclusions, such as Sillito's identification of partisan views in his BBC article and Tierney's identification of who/what the studies were about - perfect examples of journalistic objectivity which allows readers to form their own conclusions rather than presenting the info with an editorial spin or based primarily on journalistic opinion. 20:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately no one has proposed labeling Trump a pathological liar in Wikivoice, but we can cite RS which do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but pathological is much different from habitual in that the former is the result of a physical or mental disease, and until Trump is diagnosed with such a disease, we leave it out despite the speculation or journalistic opinion in RS. It is unencyclopedic information because it is not supported by factual evidence. Being an habitual liar doesn't require a medical diagnosis and will more readily be accepted as journalistic opinion that requires in-text attribution. It's all about how we present the published information, and editor judgment tells us our first consideration should be to maintain the quality and integrity of the project. 23:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

... more formally, WP:IAR. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Pew Research Center answered that "million dollar question" a few years ago. See "Trust and Distrust of News Sources by Ideological Group", 2014. It appears that even the most "consistent" conservatives trust Fox and the Wall Street Journal more than they trust Breitbart. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

More at DSM-5 (2013):

Personality Disorders

301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder

Only when antisocial personality traits are inflexible maladaptive ... and cause significant functional impairment ... do they constitute antisocial personalty disorder.

Circumstances of Personal History

V71.01 Adult Antisocial Behavior

This category can be used when the focus of clinical attention is adult antisocial behavior that is not due to a mental disorder (e.g., ... antisocial personality disorder). Examples include the behavior of some professional thieves ....

V Code conditions are not mental disorders. Per WP:IAR, we can't say he's a "pathological" liar, anywhere in this article, in anyone's voice ... other than his own.

We could, for example, say he claims to be a part-time liar.

Trump admits he might lie to voters. "I might lie to you like Hillary does all the time, but ..."

Vitali, "In His Words: 19 Notable Thoughts from Donald Trump", NBC News, August 14, 2016. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

How to efficiently address biased initiatives on this talk page

Wow. Quoting this tidbit: Fortunately no one has proposed labeling Trump a pathological liar in Wikivoice, but we can cite RS which do so. So Trump must either be a pathological liar or he has mental problems that detaches him from reality. The anti-trump bias here has reached shocking proportions.

Apparently, this talk venue has been partially hijacked by a handful of vociferous anti-trump wikipedians who now believe they have achieved a consensus whenever they are met with silence by the rest of the wikipedian community after it has fatigued and grown weary of absurdity like this.

All politicians lie; that's not news. Mister Rogers could have mentioned that to all the pre-schoolers watching his show (“If you steal a cookie, admit it, my little neighborhood friends; please don’t be like a lying politician,”). Ever since democracy was invented and leaders could only govern with the consent of the governed, politicians have lied. Their lies have continued up to modern times, such as when Hillary, responding in a court filing, gave variations of 'I don't recall' 21 out of 25 times regarding the erasure of her mail server in response to questions like ‘whether anyone ever told her she could be breaking the law by deleting the emails.’ Nope; she forgot such trivial events like that. As long as the world has politicians, they will be spewing lies.

Even Eisenhower (someone I admire greatly) who had seen the German autobahns during WWII, lied his face off when he told American farmers, who were having their property forfeited via eminent domain, that allowing freeways to be built across their fields was their patriotic duty so cities to be evacuated in the event of nuclear war.

We need a better system here on this talk page so wikipedians don’t have to daily check in here to catch threads like this in near-real-time and nip them in the bud when it's obvious what’s being discussed doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of achieving a consensus by the wider wikipedian community. No one should have to weigh in on nonsense like this as a counterbalance to ensure a false consensus doesn’t appear to exist on slanderous issues in a BLP such as whether the POTUS must have lost his mind or have personality disorders. Greg L (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok then, we'll start an RfC for every content dispute at this article. And presumably for all Trump-related articles. That's satirical, the serious response is that your mastery of Misplaced Pages policy (and WP:AGF) leave a bit to be desired. The comment you quoted with an editorial "Wow" is not inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please don’t be so quick to invoke the ol’ you-aren’t-AGF response, Mandruss. How about assuming I have good faith and that by pointing out bias, I wasn’t suggesting that anyone lacked good faith?

You know just as well as I do that people can have good faith and still succumb to bias, sometimes at great cost. That’s why the medical world and other scientific disciplines developed blinded experiments; because, as that article states, it is understood that bias may be intentional or subconscious, thus no dishonesty is implied by blinding.

That Trump is so polarizing brings out highly polarized opinions and unusual wikipedian behavior, and that means we should consider trying to come up with a better system to best serve the interests of our readership. If we put our heads together and worked constructively, we should be able to come up with a process between what we have now and having an RfC on everything. Greg L (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The you-aren't AGF response is ol' precisely because AGF failure is so common and so counterproductive. Misinterpretation of AGF is widespread, and your suggestion that I have questioned your good faith is one example; I most definitely have not.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find many editors willing to devote their valuable time to developing solutions to problems that they don't think exist, but I'll devote a little of mine to listening to any suggestions you may have. I agree that this article is biased, as in failing to fairly reflect the body of RS on Trump, but I differ as to the direction of the bias. Any "solution" would need to address my concerns as well as yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, we seem to be making progress in that we at least agree the article is biased. The reason for that bias in the article is betrayed by the bias on this talk page, which is extraordinary; people with wildly different world views, upset that the article doesn’t conform to their sense of balance, argue here with off-center initiatives. Consequently, too much effort is devoted to identifying what constitutes an RS and what constitutes a proper balance and consensus of the RSs.

One of the more astute observations I’ve seen here in a long while is the 04:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC) post, above, by User:Dervorguilla, who pointed to "Trust and Distrust of News Sources by Ideological Group" by the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan American fact tank based in Washington, D.C. I propose we develop a mixed, core set of RSs to which we quickly refer when judging whether a given topic should be covered and what our take on that topic ought to be.

Dervorguilla’s poll is an interesting place to start insofar as identifying the RSs that would comprise such a mixed, core set. We could, for instance, develop a guideline that calls for relying upon a mix of RSs where some are considered “more trusted than distrusted”-section amongst those with ideologically mixed political views. Then we could sprinkle the list with some RSs that are trusted by both political extremes (liberal & conservative). All this is in the poll Dervorguilla referenced.

Developing a list of core RSs to reference when trying to identify what is a topical, balanced, and germane for a subject to cover as well as our take on that subject would be a *guideline* (not a rule) that we could refer to as we try to quickly put some of the nuttier proposals being discussed here to bed and accomplish that end with less waste of everyone's time. Greg L (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Greg L: Such things are beyond the scope of this talk page. Also, please provide "tl;dr" versions of your comments if they exceed more than one paragraph! -- Scjessey (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that’s your opinion, Scjessey. IMHO, nothing the sort is beyond what we can agree to do here; a “standard panel of RSs” can be a litmus test to gauge whether a proposed edit should be adopted or advanced to an RfC.

And it seems high time we try given we’ve just witness a dead-serious and absolutely absurd thread like this being discussed here: Fortunately no one has proposed labeling Trump a pathological liar in Wikivoice, but we can cite RS which do so.

As regards your little jab regarding tl;dr, I submit that if you seriously expect readers to wade through a 15,0000-word article on Trump, the wikipedian community can seriously expect you to read 300 words yourself if you expect to help decide on article content. Greg L (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

In my view, we are already dealing fairly effectively with the more extreme interpretations of content policy. I'm not necessarily saying the comment you quoted is one, but do you see a lot of traction for any content including the words "pathological liar"? If it doesn't get into the article, what's your concern?
The "all politicians lie" argument betrays a strong pro-Trump bias. We have been over this again and again on this page, and we always reach the same conclusion. No fair and objective observer can look at RS on Trump's lying and claim that it is comparable to that on any previous president in modern history, including Tricky Dick Nixon and Slick Willie Clinton. Unlike Tricky and Slick, substantial coverage of Trump's alleged honesty issues pre-dates his presidency by decades. If you surveyed coverage of Trump's "unusual relationship with the truth" in RS comprising the "More trusted than distrusted" part of the "Ideologically Mixed" chart of the Pew report—refraining from rationalizations for giving some of those sources more weight than others—I'm very confident it would support significantly more content in this article about the issue, and that content would lean decidedly Trump-negative. Be careful what you wish for. We could debate weight and balance (WP:BALASP) issues, we already do that, and that's the main reason we barely touch on the issue in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I respond with, Wow! I suggest the far-from earth shaking observation that "all politicians lie," and you allege that betrays that I have a strong pro-Trump bias. Such a knee-jerk reaction to that truism suggests you have a strong anti-Trump bias, Mandruss. And that’s the problem here; little gets accomplished except when the pro-Trump wikipedians publicly bounce ideas back and forth and pat each other on the back, or visa-versa with the anti-Trump wikipedians. And the result of this disfunction is a tedious 15,000-word article that’s become a throw everything in but the kitchen sink to appease warring factions who land here with agendas to push. Greg L (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

So don't be pro- or anti-Trump. Just be an editor. O3000 (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, yeah, O3000. But most of us arrive to Misplaced Pages with biases. Leaving those biases behind is double-tough when it comes to Trump, who is polarizing. A county-wide breakdown of who voted for Trump and Hillary betrays a deep ideological divide that cuts to the core of individuals’ world view. As I mentioned above, blinded experiments (as in “double-blind experiments”) exist precisely to counteract this human foible, where those charged with collecting and analyzing data unconsciously introduce biases into their conclusions.

Do you perceive the need, O3000, to have a better procedure on this talk page for identifying a core set of RSs to which we can refer when judging whether something should be added, deleted, or adjusted in the article? The idea would be to make quick work with such a screening so we spend less time debating things, like whether we should go in search of RSs that claim Trump is a pathological liar. Greg L (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with the core set of WP guidelines. As for the term pathological liar, we shouldn't use it. Period. O3000 (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Strong pro-Trump bias is the most generous explanation for the "all politicians lie" argument. Others include mental laziness and inability to think critically, but, since you don't seem the type for either, I went with the bias explanation. But I can't imagine a more baseless argument. There's the usual distortion, dissembling, evasion, exaggeration, and even some outright lying, all the things that give politicians (and lawyers) a bad name with most of the population, but Trump takes it to a whole new level, producing an endless and relentless barrage of documented falsehoods. To present this as politics as usual is simply false. Period. And RS clearly supports that. You can Wow! until blue in the face, but you won't change my mind on that point, or the mind of anybody else on this page. I'm close to disengaging from a discussion that I thought might have some value, however. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if you didn’t write things here, Mandruss, where you pretend to speak for everyone else on this page. When did you develop that practice that you speak for others? You are entitled to your own opinions. The article has become a magnet for anti-Trumpers to come vent; I’m far from the only wikipedian to notice this and comment about the rampant anti-Trump bias here. Greg L (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Not understanding your concern about Mandruss, with whom you appear to agree on the disruption here? SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Greg L, you didn't even ping me, but now that I've discovered this thread...

Since you started this thread to attack my response in the previous thread (Fortunately no one has proposed labeling Trump a pathological liar in Wikivoice, but we can cite RS which do so.), please explain what's wrong with my comment.

Controversial comments are usually in quotes, attributed, and referenced with RS. What's wrong with that? (We could easily document that calling him that epithet is hardly controversial anymore, except among die hard Trump supporters with their heads in the sand, but let's not go there. ) We'll just discuss our usual practice here, as I described. That's how we do it using our policies. What's wrong with that?

Don't you believe in documenting what RS say? Don't you believe in including properly sourced negative information (per NPOV and BLP)? Or do you believe that Trump should be exempted from standard practice that applies to all others? This is especially relevant on a subject where he is placed in a class by himself by experts. He is an example so extreme and never seen before by fact checkers and others who specialize in studying deception and lies. They have even been forced to create new categories of lies in their research because of him. (Yes, there is a class of social science which specializes in the study of lies.) If you aren't aware of this, then read the literature and scientific research. Read what fact checkers say. Read the statistics. Read how he compares with other politicians. When dealing with Trump "all politicians lie" loses all meaning. It's a cop out used by the ignorant.

To relieve your horror, and correct your mistaken opinion, that I, or someone else, am considering writing that "Trump is a pathological liar" in wikivoice, I can assure you I'd never do that. My comment was strictly in response to a straw man false implication and should be seen ONLY in that light.

The content we have here and at Presidency of Donald Trump#False and misleading statements doesn't get anywhere near such territory. The situation where we would, and should, get near it is in an article on the subject, and it's coming. It's an extremely notable subject with massive RS coverage, with new material coming every single day. In such an article, we'd naturally include the opinions of notable individuals regarding Trump's dubious relationship to truth, regardless of whether or not they are psychiatrists, and we'd do it as I described above: "in quotes, attributed, and referenced with RS". Two examples (about the pathological liar label) that come to mind are Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz. Both have publicly and repeatedly called Trump a pathological liar. We can document that without any risk of violating BLP. If that thought horrifies you or calls for another "wow", then you really need to review our PAG, especially WP:PUBLICFIGURE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Doc Bornstein's office raided. Admits he didn't write health report

An example of how a lie by Trump shows up under another more credible person's name.

Does anybody here believe that Doc Ronny Jackson actually weighed Trump or administered the Montreal test? SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So the doctor is admitting that he lied the first time, and we're supposed to believe that he's not lying now? 😂 Let it incubate. 🐓🥚🍳 02:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, funny how not being under Trump's thumb allows more honesty. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Maggie Haberman: "The dictation is abnormal, a doctor agreeing to it is abnormal and a doctor talking about it is abnormal." Twitter -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, my - here we go...CNN The person familiar with the episode described altogether different circumstances, saying the handover had been completed peacefully, complicated only by Bornstein's fumbling with his photocopy machine to make copies of the records.. Please, let the breaking news incubate 🐣. 20:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. The anti-Trump bias here is getting old. Sovietmessiah (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sovietmessiah: No kidding. It reminds me of a twist on a line from The Piano Man: ♬ “And the wikipedians are practicing politics, as the RSs slowly get stoned…”♬ We might soon need a subpage for how Trump was responsible for faking the Apollo moon landings on a sound stage. Greg L (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No IReliable Source has challenged that Jackson did the tests he said he did. Your skepticism is pure opinion and Original Research. As for Bornstein, he has done himself no favors in the credibility department by his changing stories. Anything he says should be attributed to him, and if others challenge what he says, that should also be included. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's only OR if it goes in the article. Otherwise, it's "obvious." SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - you seem to have confused Bornstein with some fantasy about Jackson. Yes, most folks do believe Jackson weighed Trump and did a cognitive test. Rumors of Trump having health issues in late 2017 is sort of like the fad of Hillary being unfit due to health in late 2016. (Silly bits about her needing pillows to sit upright, stumbling, an actual head knock exaggerated, a real collapse from hiding pneumonia.) Seems just clickbait and partisan pitching doubt or distractions, but hey it's what the niche markets like so Limbaugh sold it one year and Maddow sold it the other way the following year. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Forcing Bornstein to hand over original of medical records. CNN's source, "the person familiar with the episode", actually confirms the basics of Bornstein's description of the incident: Three people with a letter, i.e., not the usual medical records release form, showed up unannounced and asked for the records, and - when a flustered Bornstein was unable to photocopy them in the next 20 minutes - Schiller (who's what - 6 ft. 5 or 6? and at the time was representing the President of the United States and accompanied by Trump Organization VP and Chief Legal Officer Alan Garten and an unknown "large man") told him to hand over the originals. The originals are the physician's property and responsibility, and coercing him to hand them over now is dictator style and not the standard operating procedure of the White House Medical Unit, as Sanders claimed (although - these days - who knows). Seems relevant enough to go into either this article or the one on the Presidency of Donald Trump. Bornstein was wrong for signing the "healthiest president ever" letter, for telling the NYT which medications his patient took, and for not telling Schiller (why was he in NY in the first place?) to come back later or the next day for the copies. However, taking Bornstein's quirky personality and the semantics out of the picture, what we're left with is abuse of power and the WH saying that there was "nothing out of the ordinary". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion as noncompliant with NOTNEWS. Leaving Bornstein's quirky personality and the semantics in, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. CNN actually gave more weight to what the source described as a peaceful exchange despite the docs fumbling to make copies. There's also the doctor's admission that he shared privileged medical information about his patient (who happens to be the president of the US) which may have violated state and/or federal laws. I read the speculation in the WaPo opinion (analysis) piece and even it was even qualified with: It may ultimately come to nothing... I oppose inclusion of this incident as breaking news (NOTNEWS). Odd that the doctor waited a year to disclose...but that seems to be a pattern with regards to Trump and people who appear to either hold a grudge after being replaced or may see financial opportunity or other form of personal gain by telling "their" he said/she said story, real or perceived. 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Atsme, my friend, that's ridiculous! You didn't have any problem with Dr. Ronny Jackson's horsing us about POTUS' weight at the White House presser, right? And what makes you think he weighed POTUS on a scale when every commentator has said that the weight clocked in at 16 oz. shy of "morbidly obese" or whatever the unseemly category is called, and that POTUS was demonstrably a stone or more over his previous borderline reading? I know you like horses, but... SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No comparison to what you're wanting to add now which is straight-up flotsam at this point in time, and noncompliant with NOTNEWS. You keep bringing up Trump's health - were you expecting a triathlete? As far as I can tell, he hasn't needed assistance to climb up or down stairs, and he hasn't been carried into the presidential limo, yet. No denying that he likes Big Macs and chocolate shakes...so? I'm not aware of any weight requirement to be president. 01:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

1) I have proposed no article text. Oh. 2) The issue is not health, it's lying and coercing others to lie so that ordinary journalistic modes of reporting have failed and are being reassessd by principled reporters who have come to realize they've been too willing to broadcast and amplify misinformation on behalf of POTUS. Did Doc Ronny Jackson "weigh" POTUS - like on a scale with numbers on it? SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, he weighed him on a fish with scales on it. 😉 You mentioned somewhere that you were thinking about leaving political articles and writing fish articles. Good choice! You won't have to deal with NOTNEWS. There are no politician fish but there are surgeon fish, sharks and jellyfish, so it shouldn't be too drastic a change, especially considering some things will continue to smell fishy and you will still have to avoid the flotsam. 01:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing odd about it, considering his quirky personality and the fact that the President of the United States of America came down on him with the full force of his authority (and at least two very large men - don't know the size of Garten). Nobody cares about Trump's athleticism or lack thereof (although why did he have to wait for a golf cart ride when all the other heads of state walked 700 yards from one venue to another?); lying about it – or lying about it by omission in interviews etc. – is a different matter, though not as big a deal as the strong-arming. 14 months after the NY Times interview, Bornstein's license hasn't been revoked, and Trump hasn't sued him or even threatened to sue him. Makes me wonder what else was in those files. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Based on what I've seen in the sources I think about a half sentence for the bit about Trump dictating the letter would be reasonable weight. Looking at the info currently in the Health section I'd suggest an edit to the current 2nd paragraph along these lines: During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a glowing letter of health, which he later said Trump himself had dictated, praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. A second and less hyperbolic medical report from Bornstein showed Trump's blood pressure, liver, and thyroid function to be in normal ranges. On the raid of Bornstein's office I don't know where that would fit in the article and I would hesitate to include it at all without seeing more significant coverage. ~Awilley (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, how about just saying released a letter of good health and if the superlatives must be included, use in-text attribution rather than Wikivoice? I guess folks over 60 may have a tad more appreciation for someone in their golden years to be enjoying good health...but letters don't glow. 😊 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about in-text attribution rather than Wikivoice. Do you mean putting quotes around words like "extraordinary"? I think the most notable thing about the letter was how over the top it was (test results were "astonishingly excellent" and he would unequivocally be "the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" etc.). I'm fine with any wording that conveys that, and I'm definitely not married to "glowing". ~Awilley (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Slight edit Alternative B More succinct and making clear that Trump, not the MD, released the letter to the press:

During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump released a hyperbolic and superlative-laden letter signed by his personal physician, Dr. Harold Bornstein, praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. In the face of skepticism from the press, Bornstein insisted that he was the author of the letter. In April, 2018, Bornstein stated to the press that Trump had dictated the letter.

SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, 1st statement of fact = "His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary,” read the letter, which Bornstein had initially said he wrote himself. 2nd statement of fact (same source) = "He dictated that whole letter. I didn't write that letter," Dr. Harold Bornstein told CNN. "I just made it up as I went along." So which one do we believe, and how much weight do you think is appropriate for this un-encyclopedic rant by an ex-doctor the media has shown to be lying? I only know half of what I see, and it appears to me Trump has a helluva lot more energy than some of my guy friends who are 20 years younger. The article is already full of needless trivia - so who really cares about this insignificant piece of trivia? Jiminy Cricket - what happened to sound editorial judgment? It was newsworthy as a bait-click revenue headline but it's not encyclopedic. It probably has far more relevance on the doctor's BLP rather than here. Trump passed his physical - good to know - what's next? 05:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme, apologies, I'm having trouble following your argument. You say "1st statement of fact = ..." and then say something that is not clearly a fact. Also, I don't think the health of your friends has any relevance here. And are you saying we shouldn't mention the doctor at all? Perhaps you could make a specific proposal for what you think the article should say, or list specific things you'd like the article to say or not say?

@Specifico, That kind of works for me, but I think it places too much emphasis on Bornstein's different stories. The things I think should be conveyed by the two sentences are, roughly in order of importance: 1. Trump's health indicators are normal. 2. Trump wants people to think that he is in astonishingly excellent health. 3. Trump was able to influence his doctor to make absurd claims in an official letter of health. #2 and #3 are best left for the reader to intuit (rather than us stating them explicitly). Also there is no "4: Trump's doctor lied and recanted". Based on this, what would you think about this:

During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a superlative-laden letter of health—which he later said Trump himself had dictated—praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. A second and less hyperbolic medical report from Bornstein showed Trump's blood pressure, liver, and thyroid function to be in normal ranges.

~Awilley (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Good 'un, but what purpose does it serve our readers? Is the purpose to compare what different doctors have said about Trump's health, or is the purpose to inform our readers that 2 different doctor exams have shown him to be in good heath? I say stay away from guessing at what Trump wanted people to think or what the discussion between Trump & his doctor was about. WP should not be analyzing the thoughts of our BLPs, and certainly not based on what Bornstein said. If consensus determines his health exams need to be included, let's throw-in his TV interview with Dr. Oz, the Bornstein results, and of course, White House Physician Ronny Jackson....or we could just add a sentence or two and say medical professionals who examined Trump determined that he was physically fit to serve as president...which is all that really matters anyway. 22:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

PS: Awilley apologies for being tardy in clarifying my statements. You stated above: "You say "1st statement of fact = ..." and then say something that is not clearly a fact." The "statement of fact" I was referring to was the fact the letter exists and actually does read: "His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary," - it's verifiable by clicking on the NYTimes link and reading the 1st letter, 12-4-2015. 2nd statement of fact was with reference to the fact that Bornstein's statement was quoted by RS as follows: "He dictated that whole letter. I didn't write that letter," Dr. Harold Bornstein told CNN. "I just made it up as I went along." I am not speaking to the truth of the quote itself, rather I'm referring to its verifiability, initially having been published in a CNN "exclusive" (primary source in this case). 01:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Deception

Here's a stunner from the Washington Post: It has become standard operating procedure for Trump and his aides to deceive the public with false statements and shifting accounts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Restoring this after it was mysteriously "archived" just 10 minutes after it was posted. Perhaps Malerooster can explain? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no clue but WaPo got the story wrong - it is highly misleading and inaccurate - which reminds me of what just happened with this completely inaccurate revelation by NBC & ABC that WaPo responded to by saying: Media mistakes are always bad, but the nature and timing of this one make it particularly unhelpful to the Washington press corps' collective reputation. I hope WaPo takes some time for a bit intraspective themselves. These are instances when I hate having to say "told ya so." Let the breaking news incubate - our policies didn't magically appear without good reason and obvious foresight by highly competent editors. 16:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how the article "got the story wrong." Also, the NBC story wasn't "completely inaccurate", since it correctly noted Cohen's calls were being monitored, and the legal barrier for getting a warrant to do so is no different from getting a full wire tap. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Read the sources that attempt to explain it: The Hill, CBS, ABC twitter. Common sense and good editorial judgment are still our best friends, especially in light of breaking news miscommunications, misinterpretations, the propensity of some in media to take things out of context, not to rehash the baitclick era, pundits, journalistic opinion and rampant speculation. We have NOTNEWS policy, so when in doubt, leave it out. WP is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper with a deadline or dependency on baitclick revenue. Whatever we include should be credible, quality longterm encyclopedic material. I don't consider a pay-off by a fix-it attorney to rid his client of a nuisance to be in that category. It's gossip, not to mention the fact we already have the forked Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal, now at 2686 B (436 words) "readable prose size". I don't think it deserves more than a paragraph, and actually belongs over at Wikisource and Wikinews. People of wealth and/or fame are usually shielded from such nonsense, real or perceived, so it is not surprising that Trump had no idea what Cohen did until recently. The public is usually the last to learn the truth about such things - not unlike what we recently learned from our trusted media about the sexual harassment sludge-fund to handle lawsuit settlements against our "trusted" politicians...but guess what? Snopes rated the story FALSE under the headline Did Congress Use a ‘Slush Fund’ to Pay $17 Million to Women They Sexually Harassed?. Reading and deciphering such information clearly indicates the need for WP:CIR, and adherence to WP:NOTNEWS. 18:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

ok NOW can I archive this? --Malerooster (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Per #Current consensus item 13, "manual archival is allowed for closed discussions after 24 hours." This discussion is not closed, let alone for 24 hours. Just leave it be. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme: Are you deliberately misquoting your own sources? Snopes fact-checked "a meme circulating on social media", and USA today (your "sludge-fund" link) says this: "Even so, all the public knows is that since 1997, Congress has paid more than $17 million to settle scores of workplace claims from a special Treasury Department fund created by the 1995 law. (paragraph break) Whether the claims involved sexual harassment, or discrimination against protected groups, is unknown. So is the identity of lawmakers and aides involved in alleged misbehavior." Incidentally, the "sludge-fund" act, Public Law 104-1, was the first law passed in 1995 by the first Republican-controlled congress since 1954. And how do you know this: People of wealth and/or fame are usually shielded from such nonsense, real or perceived, so it is not surprising that Trump had no idea what Cohen did until recently. OR? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I just want to make sure you know what happened here, in case you wanted to weigh in. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ I posted this 2 days ago and folks are pushing to have it archived? Give me a break. The discussion should not be closed or archived until a clear consensus emerges or the discussion dies out and remains dead for an extended period of time. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Clear consensus of what exactly? Yes archive this sh*t now. --Malerooster (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Using a favorite verb of one of the other editors: Let it incubate to see what will emerge. This may or may not go into the article, in the Public Profile or the Presidency (Personnel or Investigations) section maybe, working title "Getting kneecapped by your own lawyer confirming that you lied repeatedly". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're so eager to get this archived? Manual archival is completely unnecessary here Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Charlton Heston called and said that somebody needs to pry the shovel from Rudy's cold dead hands. Hole's getting deeper: "I’m facing a situation with the president and all the other lawyers are, in which every lawyer in America thinks he would be a fool to testify, I’ve got a client who wants to testify." (NYT) "'I am focused on the law more than the facts right now,' Giuliani said." (CNN) Ah yes, indeedy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

In my view, we should consider adding the quote above to Donald Trump#False statements to further bolster the section. The cited source is the work of journalism, rather than an opinion piece, so it is definitely a high-quality reference. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, some of the false statements now having been confirmed by Giuliani and Trump himself, e.g., Trump's initial claim that he didn’t know about the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, that he didn’t pay Cohen back etc. (Also the logical conclusion that the one-night stand did occur but - meh.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Is there a reason for "False statements" being a subsection of "Political image"? False statements wouldn’t appear to be a matter of image or perception by the public. I’d like to avoid having to search 78 archives. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

What I’ve been reading in this section needs a step back - this is an encyclopedia, not Hollywood news. Our responsibility to our readers is to provide encyclopedic information, not a bunch of allegations, speculation and disinformation. Do you really believe America elected this guy based on his past affairs? Most of what we’re reading is he said - she said bs garnished with lots of journalistic ‘’’opinion’’’, the weight of which is pretty obviously the result of his fake news allegations against media. Regardless, all these rumors and petty attacks will eventually be deleted as inconsequential trivia in his overall presidency...not unlike what happened in the Obama & Clinton articles. I was surprised to see so little in the GW Bush article, and even more surprised at his approval ratings, but I guess the media liked him. 11:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"... he said - she said bs garnished with lots of journalistic opinion ..." my foot. They're lists and databases with documented falsehoods, i.e., "he said" quotes. The Washington Post, for example, even has an interactive graphic with "a running list of every false or misleading statement" and his "many flip-flops, since those earn Upside-Down Pinocchios if a politician shifts position on an issue without acknowledging he or she did so." Here are some others: PolitiFact, TIME, NYT with a comparison of falsehoods told by Obama and Trump in their first 10 months in office, NYT again with a bunch of quotes, USA Today with his biggest whoppers of 2017. A social scientist who analyzed the falsehoods (actually, she calls them lies) documented in WaPo's FactChecker in the Independent said it was "a flood of deceit" and, since "reporters have access to only a subset of Trump's false statements - the ones he makes publicly - so unless he never stretches the truth in private, his actual rate of lying is almost certainly higher." She also wrote this: "The most stunning way Trump's lies differed from our participants' , though, was in their cruelty. An astonishing 50 percent of Trump's lies were hurtful or disparaging." That's one for the history books and for the encyclopedia - most falsehoods ever and most disparaging falsehoods ever. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think a bigger issue here is the total focus on the claims which results in a failure to read the qualifiers in those same cited sources. For example, NYTimes stated: These are not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments. Mr. Trump’s defenders say fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact are politically biased, which Mr. Adair and his counterparts adamantly deny. But even among Republicans examined by PolitiFact, Mr. Trump is an outlier. I don't understand why there is such an intense focus on one small aspect of his life - it's no secret that he's flamboyant with his words, or that he exaggerates, distorts, misstates and makes what some have alleged to be falsehoods - we're not on a mission to discredit BLPs; rather, our mission is to provide RS statements of fact and encyclopedic information. The section title "False statements" is not NPOV, and neither is the contents - specifically DUE & BALANCE. We should not constantly have to bring this up. 16:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at your changes to the section formerly entitled "False statements" but haven't touched it yet. The "small aspect of his life" seems to be taking up a lot of his time, day in, day out – that presidential bully pulpit thing, announcements, interviews, tweet, tweet, tweet. We're also not on a mission to suppress negative information about a subject or to make excuses for a subject who "exaggerates, distorts, misstates and makes what some have alleged to be falsehoods" - your words ("some", allege"?). He's flamboyant with his hair, but he lies like a rug violates the Ninth Commandment.

You cherry-picked two quotes from one NYT articles. For example, you use a partial quote from this sentence: "But the episode goes to the heart of a more fundamental debate about Mr. Trump: When does he know the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed?" and use it to add editorial spin: "Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows 'the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed'." A fundamental debate is equivalent to "some questions having been raised in an attempt to determine"? The article goes on to say this: "Mr. Trump, after all, has made so many claims that stretch the bounds of accuracy that full-time fact-checkers struggle to keep up. Most Americans long ago concluded that he is dishonest, according to polls. While most presidents lie at times, Mr. Trump’s speeches and Twitter posts are embedded with so many false, distorted, misleading or unsubstantiated claims that he has tested even the normally low standards of American politics."

You could also have cited some specific falsehoods mentioned in the article: "Mr. Trump’s presidency has been marked from the start with false or misleading statements, such as his outlandish claims that more people came to his inauguration than any before and that at least three million unauthorized immigrants voted illegally against him, costing him the popular vote. He has gone on to assert that President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, a claim that his own Justice Department refuted, and that he would not benefit from his tax-cutting plan." Or this: "The lack of fidelity to facts has real-world consequences in both foreign affairs and domestic policymaking." The RS you used for your qualifiers don't work! Suggest you remove the last two sentences. I haven't made up my mind about adding "exaggerated or distorted" to the heading. Feels like a qualifier to draw attention away from false. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on what I've read, this whole BLP is cherrypicked, so don't be cherrypicking things I've said about the NYTimes article, which btw is dated March 17, 2018 - the most updated of all the sources that were cited in that paragraph. I cited a high quality source that explains exactly how the media has singled out certain statements by Trump, and we'll see if an RfC determines it to be worthy of inclusion or not. There's plenty of time to get this article right. 03:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Propose a small rewording of mention of protests in lead

Per current consensus, item , the exact wording used in the lead to discuss protests is His election and policies sparked numerous protests. As there continue to be protests against policies, perhaps this sentence ought to read His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. This is also consistent with the language at the linked Protests against Donald Trump. Goodnightmush 14:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

...numerous protests by his political opponents. Keep in mind that the US is a constitutional republic with a representative democracy and political parties dominated by a two-party system, so when there are protestors, we need to qualify who is protesting so readers from other countries will have a better understanding of what is involved. 18:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with applying the label “political opponents” to all the protesters. A brush too broad. O3000 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not as broad as "numerous protests" which actually is a generalized sweep of all opinions, and is clearly misleading. I doubt his base would be protesting against him, and that is what makes a big difference in how the US government operates vs the governments in other countries which are actually governed under much different democracies from the 2-party system in the US, and the electoral college, etc. I am eligible to vote in another country because of my residency status and despite it being in a different language, the long lists of candidates representing pages of different parties made me wanna catch a rabbit. 19:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

See generally Template:Specify, concerning statements that lack sufficient specificity. "This situation most often arises when sources are over-summarized to an excessive level..." Example: "Latin American liberation theology met opposition from power in the US." That claim "needs further specification as to who opposed it ... and when"; otherwise, it's "too vague to really be verifiable, and seems like a conspiracy theory in Misplaced Pages's voice." --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, Dervorguilla. In fact, if more editors would look at the various inline templates, we may be spared from having to explain everything. , , , , , and so on. 14:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Goodnightmush's reasoning and proposal to change past tense to present perfect. I also strongly oppose applying the label "political opponents" to the protesters, particularly not after reading Atsme's reason for using it in the article, i.e., editoriliazing short of saying "Democrats": "Keep in mind that the US is a constitutional republic with a representative democracy and Political parties in the United States dominated by a two-party system, so when there are protestors, we need to qualify who is protesting so readers from other countries will have a better understanding of what is involved." We don't know what political affiliation, if any, the protesters had/have. "Numerous protests" is neither a generalization nor misleading, it's a statement of fact, and I'm pretty sure that nobody anywhere in the world thought it was Trump's base protesting. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, don't include it in the lede at all. It's too vague for information that is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Verifiable statements of fact can be attributed with inline citations, but in this case, and it happens to be a derogatory opinion, so use in-text attribution and cite the RS. It's not our job to give the appearance something is widespread when it's actually limited in scope to the partisan opposition. 22:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The word “partisan” does not pass WP:LABEL unless you can prove every one of the hundreds of thousands of protesters is a partisan. As you tend to link to videos, here’s an example of the concept: O3000 (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

O3000, partisan is not a contentious label...racist, extremist, pervert are contentious labels. It would be much better to leave the widespread generalization out of the lead and narrow it down to "his election sparked numerous protests". To say his policies sparked numerous protests is dubious. First of all, Trump had not signed any policies into law when the protests/marches first began (right after his election). See the policies Trump signed into law during his first year. You would also be hard pressed to include his supporters as being among those who were protesting his election or his policies. See Protests against Donald Trump (which needs work so if you have time, compare it to Protests against Barack Obama and Protests against George W. Bush, the latter made me laugh.) 00:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Support adding "have sparked" (since they are continuing) and oppose adding "political opponents". The Reliable Source reporting says there were protests, numerous protests, huge protests. Reliable Source reporting does not say the protesters were Democrats, or "political opponents", or any other partisan label. The protests were so broad-based that they probably transcended the usual political labels and included people who are not generally politically active at all. In particular, the Women's march and the March for science seemed to bring in a much broader group of participants than the usual partisan divides. And the fact that he had "not yet signed any policies into law" is irrelevant. In most cases the protesters were opposing what he said he intended to do, not what he had already done. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN. That there were protests based on his policies and election is a plain fact that doesn't need (over)qualification. I've  Done the change, whole political opponents etc is a separate debate but on changing the tense there's unamity Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I support the change just made, and I agree adding "political opponents" is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's so wrong about accuracy? The marches were not protests about his policies - they were protests against his election and partisan opponents are still protesting the election and calling for his impeachment. Melanie, name 2 policies that were protested...then we can justify adding "policies". I liken it to your opposition to blaming Clinton for starting the whole birther thing...and yes, words matter and generalizations are generalizations, so if one is not allowed, none should be allowed for the same reason - no double standards, please. 19:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course the protests are about policies, including:

• The travel ban
• Immigrant policies and the planned wall
• Plans to delete climate change data and gag scientists
• Detainment of refugees and visitors from countries blocked by Trump's Executive Order.
• Health “reform” policies
• The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
• Decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

In one month, WaPo said that 82.7% of all protests in the country “were opposing Trump’s policies”. What do you think so many protests are about – his hair? This claim that all these protests by women’s groups, scientists, etc. are all just upset Democrats is disingenuous. O3000 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

What O3000 said. And we are not proposing to ADD policies to the sentence - it is already there and has been for a long time. The current sentence says His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.. That's how it should stay. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Trump's grossly offensive and divisive statements about women and Mexicans were, or were presumed to be, sexist and racist. And they did -- understandably -- spark numerous heated protests. But per WP:IAR they cannot be misleadingly characterized as “his policies”.

"Policy," Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed. "A standard course of action that has been officially established by a ... political party, etc."

Also, "his" (in this context) = "not Hers". As a whole, the American electorate opposed Her policies more than Mr. Trump's policies, 50.6%–48.7%. Neither the Republicans, nor the Libertarians, nor the Greens, nor the Constitutionists disputed the election results. See also Clinton, "A vote for a third party is a vote for Donald Trump." --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That's why we say "his election and policies". Not every protester had the same motivation, and for most the motivation was mixed. Some protested his election, some his general character and fitness, some his policy proposals (in the general sense; the Mexican wall was a policy proposal even if it wasn't something "officially established"), some "all of the above". If it would make you happy we could say "protesting his election and/or his policies" but I would oppose that, because there is basically no distinction between the various reasons for protesting. Reliable Sources do not provide information on that issue; it would be purely Original Research to say something about it. (WaPo above says that four-fifths of protests were against "his policies," but I submit they do not know or do not make a distinction between his policies and him personally.) And for goodness sakes let's not even try to interpret how various percentages of the electorate felt: she got more votes, he won the presidency, that's the situation, end of story. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a second definition of "policies" in politics: The declared objectives a government or party seeks to achieve and preserve, as in "what he said." Nobody disputed the election results (unless you want to count Jill Stein suing in Michigan and Wisconsin). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Since both of you misunderstood my statement, I owe you an apology for the ambiguity. I meant to agree that the Mexican wall was his most renowned officially established course of action. (Source: "Policies" page on the official Donald J. Trump for President website.)

Also, Ms. Clinton got fewer votes than her opponents in aggregate, not more. And as it turned out, that's what mattered this time. Had she gotten 50% of the vote, she would have won the presidency. Had she and the other Establishment candidate (Mr. McMullin) in aggregate gotten 50% of the vote, she would likewise have won the presidency. Had the election just been between her and Mr. Trump, he by himself would have gotten more of the vote than she by herself (according to postelectoral analyses). Had it been between Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump, however, Mr. Sanders would gotten more of the vote (according to the Economist's polls) -- and the Establishment still would have lost! The mainstream Establishment press has more-or-less adjusted to this situation (see this week's Time cover story on the FBI) and is moving away from the somewhat distorted perspective (as I view it) that's still displayed in parts of this article's lead.

However, I've said my piece here, and I appreciate your listening. I think I should drop out now and focus on making less controversial efforts to improve the article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m not seeing anything about the many protests and marches against past presidents. Why are they included in this one? Do you not see what’s happening or why because it’s pretty obvious to me. 11:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, protests are included in the article for the normal reason. There is a large quantity of ReliableSource coverage of the protests, with that coverage reporting the protests were unusually numerous, and reporting they were unusually massive involving many millions of people.

Commenting that you don't see such coverage in other presidential articles is both Whataboutism-other-articles and False equivalence. Even if there were an equal quantity of ReliableSource coverage of an equal number of protests of equal size for many or most other presidents, it is still irrelevant and inappropriate on this talk page. Alsee (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with most of what you said Alsee. We try to maintain some form of consistency, MOS, and NPOV in our BLPs, whether they're public figures or not. We've got 2-1/2 more years to go, for Pete's sake. We should not be cramming in every single hate detail and negative thing the media ever said about this guy. Most of it is journalistic opinion that should be added with in-text attribution. Where are we going to put the encyclopedic information at the end of his presidency when all the hoopla dies down? I'd be willing to wager that a lot of these opinions will be deleted like they were at Barrack Obama, so I'm not going to get my panties in a wad over it. I doubt many readers get past the lead and maybe the first 3 sections anyway and we're already at 85 kB (13851 words) "readable prose size". 03:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Real estate - Manhattan projects - Wollman Rink

I made some corrections, but didn't touch the last sentence. The source from April 1, 1987, doesn't say that he operated the rink for a year, it merely mentions the first winter's profits. I haven't found any source that says how long he operated the rink/restaurant/concessions the first time around. The agreement for the construction also awarded him the operation of rink/restaurant/concessions, with the profits to be given to charity and public works (he did, but the sources only mention the first winter). Trump wanted a 10-year contract, the city offered 4. Did he accept 4? He (or rather Wollman Rink Operations LLC) won a contract in 2001 to operate Wollman and Lasker rinks from November 1, 2001, to April 30, 2012, and I read in one of the sources that he lost out to another bidder in the Nineties but it didn't specify when. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Found it, along with a picture of the man on his Trump-branded Zamboni. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Birthplace in infobox

I have a quick question regarding the birthplace in the infobox: should we list it as "New York City, New York, U.S.", or just keep it as "New York City"? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

See #Current consensus item 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Just wanted to make sure since I don't intend to get involved in an edit war. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's perfect like it is. We all know where New york City is. Sovietmessiah (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories heading or sub-heading

I think we should create a heading or sub-heading devoted to Trump's promotion of various conspiracy theorists. These include Obama being a Muslim, Obama not being American, climate change being a hoax invented by the Chinese, vaccines causing autism, millions of illegal aliens voting with the help of the Democrats, Ted Cruz' dad being involved in the Kennedy assassination, and so on. What say you guys? Should there be a sub-heading devoted to the conspiracy theories of Trump? Steeletrap (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Nope. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, there's enough RS coverage to justify it, and he's "famously spread conspiracies and false claims" and fake news. Researchers from Princeton University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Exeter examined the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Brendan Nyhan, one of the researchers, emphatically stated in an interview on NBC News: "People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."

NBC NEWS: "It feels like there's a connection between having an active portion of a party that's prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you're describing."

NYHAN: "It's worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it's also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• No - let’s wait until after OIG presents his report. The biggest conspiracy theory thus far has been allegations of his collusion with Russia so if that’s what you have in mind, it may be worthy of its own article...but again, wait until we know what Mueller has, and what the OIG has - no rush...no deadline. Let’s get the article right. 11:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Maybe - Besides just talking about Trump's conspiracy du jour, have any RSs of any sort collected such a list? Greg L (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I just added a nonexclusive list of RS documenting Trump's telling of falsehoods and promoting of conspiracy theories to the "Deception" section above. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and the falsehoods, alternative facts, exaggerations, misinformation, distortions (whatever), that were specifically singled out by the media are not all b&w falsehoods as explained in the NYTimes. We also need to wait for the conclusions of the Mueller probe, the OIG investigation, and the Gowdy/Nunes classified briefing of the DOJ (that had to be subpoenaed to get the FBI docs). We're in RECENTISM territory, and until all these claims have been substantiated, we should not be going beyond in-text attribution, especially as it relates to any conspiracy theories, and whether or not they're a product of "deception". There's no rush. If the purpose is to provide encyclopedic information to benefit our readers, I'm sure most would be far more interested in the dismantlement of N Korea's nuclear test site. 01:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Dismantlement, huh - been watching North Korean propaganda? The mountain collapsed. When your nuclear test site is kaput, suspending your nuclear testing (nice clip – courtesy of TIME – of North Korean TV anchorwoman waxing enthusiastic) isn’t much of a concession, with or without the preceding name-calling hissy fits between the two dear leaders. Also, I am not aware that Mueller, OIG, or Nunes/Gowdy are looking into - alleged, whatever - Trump falsehoods, promotions of conspiracy theories, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Shhhhh...you'll have all the pro-trumpeters trumpeting that Trump secretly moved a few mountains and scared the bajeebies outta rocket man. 😂 As far as not knowing about the ongoing investigations by Mueller, OIG and Gowdy/Nunes...surely you jest? 00:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

And here you're misquoting me. I didn't say that I don't know about the Special Counsel investigation of Russian interference & alleged collusion by American actors, the OIG investigation of alleged FBI violations, the Nunes/Gowdy "investigation" of "alleged" misdeeds by everybody EXCEPT Trump & his campaign, I said that they're not investigating Trump's stream of falsehoods, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Noop - to begin I didn't "quote" you so I couldn't possibly have misquoted you; secondly (and now I'm quoting you with my bold underline for emphasis), you said: Also, I am not aware that Mueller, OIG, or Nunes/Gowdy are looking into - alleged, whatever - Trump falsehoods, promotions of conspiracy theories, etc. In my book, "alleged, whatever" covers a lot of territory and so does "etc." 22:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Reform Party in lead, redux

The sentence In 2000, Trump unsuccessfully campaigned for the Reform Party nomination for president. has re-entered the lead, after what appeared to be a consensus not to include it in the lede at Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_72#2000_presidential_campaign (January 2018). As Plumber (talk · contribs) has repeatedly re-added this material, I'm taking the liberty to remove it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Emigrate vs Immigrate

I noticed in the beginning of the Family and personal life section, a number of relatives are mentioned as having “emigrated to” the US. For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph there says, “Trump's paternal grandfather, Friedrich Trump, first emigrated to...”

Wouldn’t the correct word to use here be “immigrated?” Or as an alternative, the sentences could be tweaked to say “emigrated from to...”

Sorry, just nit-picking with the grammar here. Thanks for any thoughts! Uturnaroun (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, we need more nit-pickers here. I agree and have made the change. If someone for some reason disagrees, they are free to revert and discuss here. —Compassionate727  19:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, you emigrate FROM your home country, while you immigrate TO another country. Emigrants are leaving, and immigrants are arriving. The perspective (and location) of the speaker determines which word to use. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

We should bear in mind that, in word definition and usage, what's "correct" is what most of the population does, and that evolves over time. Even if we understand that, we naturally tend to imagine that there is one currently "correct" answer to language questions, and that's often true, but the fact is that a lot of it is disputed even among authoritative sources. I think this is one such case.
My dictionary of choice, Merriam-Webster, says at emigrate: "The subtle difference between them lies in point of view: emigrate stresses leaving the original place, while immigrate focuses on entering the new one." That seems to imply that we should never say "emigrate to", but the same page contains the example phrase: "emigrated from Canada to the United States". I don't think their interpretation precludes "emigrated to" or "immigrated from"; they are simply saying that the choice of word implies which country the speaker is standing in. No doubt you could find other interpretations.
In the end, it's a matter of opinion of little consequence (not to say this is a waste of time), and I don't oppose this change. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no real disagreement. That example is quite good: "emigrated from Canada to the United States". It's using "from" and "to" in the proper ways in relation to the word "emigrated". So in relation to the word "immigrated", it would be "immigrated to Canada from the United States". Is that right? (I'm a bit "language confused" after living in Europe for so many years. My native English isn't always what it should be since I don't speak English all the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If "emigrated to" were "incorrect" in the eyes of Merriam-Webster, I think the example phrase would be a really bad example for illustrative purposes. It would have to read "emigrated from Canada and immigrated to the United States". I choose to believe that they wouldn't be so careless. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

OMG! I wrote that wrong. I should have switched the countries. Your latest example uses both words in the correct way. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

In cases where you include both the place of departure and the destination, I believe which word you use is determined by proximity. That is, it would be best to say "emigrate from Canada to the United States," while if you inverted the word order, it would become "immigrate to the United States from Canada." —Compassionate727  00:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"False statements" section

Section title

Earlier today Atsme changed the title of that subsection from "False statements" to "False, exaggerated or distorted statements." I disagree with that change. The fact checkers are not calling him out for exaggerating; they are calling him out for saying things that are simply false - factually incorrect. The Reliable Sources quoted in that section say "false or misleading" (twice), "inaccurate", and "misstatements". I think we should change the title back. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree, we follow RS. And what RS say distorted? O3000 (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Not true - read the NYTimes article. They are specific statements they're calling out - the higher quality RS qualify what statements they are calling out. Don't forget, we should be using specific statements, not generalizations. For example, is it really a falsehood to say more people watched the inauguration when you consider 8 years later, people were watching on different devices? This is still a BLP, and while we have some leniency with PUBLICFIGURE, we still have to use in-text attribution when the claims are as vague as these. That is exactly why I wrote the paragraphs the way I did and used in-text attribution to quote the source. You have more leeway in the Presidency of... but I would still steer clear of generalizations. Oh, and Melanie - call an RfC if you are in disagreement because local consensus just isn't going to cut it. 01:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The section title was not a fair representation of the overall coverage of Trump's habit of lying. If anything, this section should be updated based on more recent tallies of his lies, and the widespread view that the lies are not simply exaggerations or "distorted statements" (which is just a fancy way of saying "lies"). If this section is going to be changed so radically, it needs to be discussed first and should be based on a broader, not a narrower, perspective.- MrX 🖋 02:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Either restore the original title (or retitle it to "Alternative facts", which is the Trump administation's word for "falsehoods". No, just use the original title.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX - see #22 above in the list of consensus items. If you keep using the word "lies" to describe this BLP, you are very likely to be in vio of BLP. I'm not sure what you did is not borderline a vio of Consensus - re: any page BLP vio. The cited sources you replaced are #255 "Fact-Checking President Trump Through His First 100 Days", #256 "President Trump's first 100 days: The fact check tally", and #257 "In One Rally, 12 Inaccurate Claims From Trump", and only one cited source at #258 "President Trump has made 1,318 false or misleading claims over 263 days". The words false or misleading claims is used, so what I added was very much supported by the cited sources, and if you'll read the Times article, the falsehoods some seem to be getting all out of NPOV whack over were qualified by the NYTimes with a very unambiguous explanation that media singled out specific statements so you actually returned a section I worked to make compliant and returned it to noncompliance and did so via a BLP vio in your edit summary. Would you like to self-revert or are you not concerned about a BLP vio in light of #22 Consensus list? 02:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not violating anything to improve the text. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes not calling a lie a lie is a lie. If we're discussing RS which use the word "lie" or "liar", then we should be able to use their wording when discussing them without someone getting all thin-skinned about it. It's different if we are just voicing our opinions. Then we should be careful. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme:Why are you referring me to consensus #22? I never wrote that he is a liar in the article, and I wouldn't because it's not in keeping with encyclopedic tone. But let's not mince words—he is most definitely a liar; a fact which is well documented in multiple reliable sources, including the ones I linked below. Your version was much less representative of the body of sources on the subject than the current version. I'm happy to discuss how we can make it even better, by updating it and informing our readers of how extensively Trump's lies permeate his public persona.- MrX 🖋 03:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

My goodness, MrX - I quoted the sources, how can you say what I added was less representative? That's bologna!! 🥪 WaPo used "lies" in the headline - hello bait-click - but in the body they say "3,000 false or misleading public statements." You know better, so why are you doing this? 03:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The headline is also part of the source and can be quoted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"Body of sources", meaning the preponderance of reliable sources, not the few that one finds that happen to agree with one's person POV. Psst. It's click-bait not bait-click.- MrX 🖋 03:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX, mine is the action verb form: bait headline...reader clicks....bait-click. 😂 15:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I'm just heading to the store to buy some bait-fish. 172.58.153.102 (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

IP, real anglers don't buy bait - they throw a bait-net. 05:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

First sentence of the paragraph

Another, kind of minor thing in that section, but I will bring it here since there was disagreement at the article. In the "False statements" section, the first sentence used to read As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks. Atsme changed that first sentence to Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements during his first 100 days as president, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks. I changed that to Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements since assuming the presidency, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks. with the edit summary "not just the first 100 days". The paragraph includes fact-check tallies from 100 days, 99 days, and 263 days, as well as more general statements not qualified as to what time period they are covering. She restored the "during his first 100 days as president" wording, with the edit summary "the first few sentences are cited to the 1st 100 days only, then it changes to different periods and citations". I don’t think we should specify "first 100 days" in the opening sentence of the paragraph when that doesn’t apply to the whole paragraph. And now that I look at it (I missed this before), it should say "false statements," not "false, exaggerated or distorted claims," because the latter does not reflect what the sources say. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Again agree. We must use RS? O3000 (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Disagree - the sources cited state 1ST 100 DAYS. The sources also use the word "claims". What you're doing now seems more like IDONTLIKEIT. The information in that section is cited to specific sources that made the specific claims. You cannot just generalize without sourcing it to something in a BLP, and you can't have your own facts. Be specific to the RS and keep PUBLICFIGURE, CONTENTIOUS LABELS, and BALANCE AND WEIGHT in mind. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. 01:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We're way past 100 days, so let's dispense with that and update the article. We can start with his 3000+ lies..- MrX 🖋 02:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX - the NYTimes article I cited was dated March 17, 2018. Did you get a chance to read it? 03:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes.- MrX 🖋 03:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the other article's section at Presidency of Donald Trump#False and misleading statements (an excellent section title we could use here), we are not limited to his presidency. We can go as far back as we have RS documentation. We can start with my first suggestion there, which, unfortunately, included some content from before his presidency, so it was correct to pare it down, and I did. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(EC) Atsme: Huh? Are we talking about the same edit? As far as the first 100 days thing, I am just saying that the opening sentence of the paragraph, which is written like a summary, should not include a figure that applies to only part of the paragraph. That’s a simple matter of summary style. As for all that alphabet soup, are you talking about your preference to say false, exaggerated and distorted claims instead of false statements? I don’t really care about claims vs statements and I don’t want to use up all my monthly allotment of NYT and WaPo articles to see which is more commonly used. But I do object to adding exaggerated when exaggeration is not what he is getting called out for. Look a the sources yourself: false or misleading is the predominant descriptor used. In any case, you only harm your own credibility when you start shouting BLP! and RfC! and Exceptional claims! over a matter of whether to add or remove a couple of words, when the issue is readily solved by consulting the sources. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That "alphabet soup" equals IDONTLIKEIT. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop the snark, BR. Melanie - the summary statement is misleading and not supported by the cited sources which is why I used in-text attribution. Furthermore, MrX just reverted the NYTimes updated 2018 statement that qualified the media's selections of falsehoods, misstatements and distortions by Trump - Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed." The New York Times qualified that claims of Trump's falsehoods and misstatements are "not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments." By removing that statement and what I added made that section unquestionably noncompliant with NPOV....not only because it was based on cherrypicked statements by Trump the media used for analysis, but because the lead in sentence generalizes the whole thing. It's wrong, and it's noncompliant with policy. We don't call any BLP a "liar", especially when #22 Consensus above says not to do that. We are now in BLP vio territory. 03:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We do quote RS when they use words like "lie" and "liar". We just don't do it in wikivoice. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The subject is "false" statements, not "true" statements. To stay on topic one must cherrypick statements, leaving out the true and documenting the false. This type of cherrypicking is perfectly proper. We are even allowed to have articles here that focus on a single "notable" POV. Trump is remarkable for the degree to which his statements are untrue. He's way outside the norm for what we mean when we say that "everyone lies" or "all politicians lie". He's uniquely disconnected from truth. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"President Donald Trump is an "unethical" man "untethered to truth and institutional values," former FBI Director James Comey writes in his eagerly anticipated memoir, which paints the president as living in "a cocoon of alternative reality."" NBC News A great book. We're almost finished listening to the audiobooks version. He narrates it himself. I have the book as well. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I'm not exactly sure what you think this means:

"These are not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments."

That looks like a standard disclaimer. They are not making some sort of ratio statement, for example 73% true vs. 27% false. In fact, one never sees such things. They are choosing to look at statements which accuracy have been doubted. Then they analyze them. That's what fact checkers do. They don't examine statements which are not questioned. True statements don't usually get questioned, only statements that seem dubious. Then they are rated as true, mixed, or false (or some such system). Our section covers the false ones.

The same standard is used for all public persons and politicians. Trump is judged by the same standards used by all members of the International Fact-Checking Network. The major fact checkers are members and are nonpartisan: Poynter Institute, PolitiFact, FactCheck, Snopes, and The Washington Post.

Trump rates as far more deceptive because he is, not because he's been treated unfairly. Them's the facts, and I don't have the luxury of ignoring those facts, as some do. Editors here should be better than that. Ideally we should take it for granted that our politicians attempt to always be honest with us. They lose credibility when they frequently let us down. We shouldn't be in this situation, where neither Americans nor foreign allies can trust Trump because he lacks credibility. He can't be trusted because he is dishonest so much of the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we are talking about the whole edit, not just those two points

I see that MrX has restored the previous text of the article since we should discuss such changes before implementing them. That unfortunately removed the March 2018 NYT article you added, which I think added valuable balance to the section, and I would be OK with re-adding it if others agree. My opposition to "exaggerated and distorted claims" still stands. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the vague wording "Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed."" and it's at least a little tangential to the central fact that his statements and comments are very frequently at at odds with objective reality.- MrX 🖋 03:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I object, too. As I said in another thread a couple of days ago, the quotes were cherry-picked and taken out of context. The contested content was:

1. Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed." For starters, "questions being raised in an attempt to determine" is gobbledygook. The NYT article says that there’s a debate about whether he knowingly tells falsehoods or not; there’s no debate about the actual telling. The article then continues: "Mr. Trump, after all, has made so many claims that stretch the bounds of accuracy that full-time fact-checkers struggle to keep up. Most Americans long ago concluded that he is dishonest, according to polls. While most presidents lie at times, Mr. Trump’s speeches and Twitter posts are embedded with so many false, distorted, misleading or unsubstantiated claims that he has tested even the normally low standards of American politics." That sounds pretty conclusive to me.
2. The New York Times qualified that claims of Trump's falsehoods and misstatements are "not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments." The first part of the sentence is editorializing and generalizing; the NYT was talking only about PolitiFacts' selection and the comparative percentages it found for various politicians. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Re "claims of falsehoods and misstatements": Nice editorial spin: The NYT article uses the verb five times, the noun three, and every time it's about Trump's claims about all sort of things, not other people's claims about him. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't agree with MrX regarding his reasons for opposing the following: "Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed." I paraphrased and used in-line text attribution from the NYTimes which, in exact wording, states: "But the episode goes to the heart of a more fundamental debate about Mr. Trump: When does he know the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed?" My paraphrased lead into the quote represents what the source says; however, I would not be opposed to quoting the published sentence in its entirety if it offers a path to resolution. I also object to the false comparisons being made about Trump's falsehoods vs those of past presidents, primarily because no consideration was given to the fact that Trump has done his best to avoid the measured/rehearsed/prepared press conferences while opting for public rallies, conferences, Twitter and on-the-fly exchanges with media - and he's had many - leaving him far more exposed to media criticism whenever he gets a fact wrong, exaggerates, misstates, or distorts information. He clearly lacks the suave and political posh of those who were groomed for that position. I believe it is important information that should be included in his BLP because it speaks volumes as to who he is, his demeanor, what he lacks in political polish, why his base continues to support him, etc. 06:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't put any of that original research in the article. Thanks for linking to the Politico article. Unfortunately, it does not support your theory.- MrX 🖋 12:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX - what OR are you referring to? I'm quoting the NYTimes. 15:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Everything starting with "... the false comparisons being made..." until the end. Also, your paraphrase was not really a faithful representation of the source. See Space4Time3Continuum2x's comment for more information.- MrX 🖋 19:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Well...again, I disagree, and apparently so does the Politico article I linked. Vanity Fair supports my claim of "measured/rehearsed/prepared" exposure by the former president, but I have other articles I want to work on today, so I'll leave it there. Happy editing! 20:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

False and misleading statements - new content

Here it is. We can use it here, as a start. I have relied heavily on factual, not opinion, sources, IOW fact checkers and researchers. These are not opinions, but descriptions of actual research and statistics used by fact checkers. It can no doubt be improved. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

As president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks. Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up."

Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent."

Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true."

Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously.

Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".

Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He lies about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning.

In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency."

David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities."

In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada.

Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".

Sources

^ Linda Qiu, Fact-Checking President Trump Through His First 100 Days, The New York Times (April 29, 2017). Glenn Kessler & Michelle Ye Hee Lee, President Trump's first 100 days: The fact check tally, The Washington Post (May 1, 2017). Linda Qiu, In One Rally, 12 Inaccurate Claims From Trump. The New York Times (June 22, 2017). Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication., New York Times (August 7, 2017). "President Trump has made 1,628 false or misleading claims over 298 days". The Washington Post. November 14, 2017. Retrieved April 1, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help) Ye, Hee Lee Michelle; Kessler, Glenn; Kelly, Meg. "President Trump has made 1,318 false or misleading claims over 263 days". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 5, 2017. Milbank, Dana (July 1, 2016). "The facts behind Donald Trump's many falsehoods". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 2, 2018. Konnikova, Maria (January 20, 2017). "Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain". Politico Magazine. Retrieved March 31, 2018. ^ "Trump's trust problem". Politico. Retrieved May 16, 2017. "From the archives: Sean Spicer on Inauguration Day crowds". PolitiFact. January 21, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "FACT CHECK: Was Donald Trump's Inauguration the Most Viewed in History?". Snopes. January 22, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "The Facts on Crowd Size". FactCheck. January 23, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018. Rein, Lisa (March 6, 2017). "Here are the photos that show Obama's inauguration crowd was bigger than Trump's". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 8, 2017. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie; Rosenberg, Matthew (January 21, 2017). "With False Claims, Trump Attacks Media on Turnout and Intelligence Rift". The New York Times. Retrieved March 8, 2017. Makarechi, Kia (January 2, 2014). "Trump Spokesman Sean Spicer's Lecture on Media Accuracy Is Peppered With Lies". Vanity Fair. Retrieved January 22, 2017. Kessler, Glenn. "Spicer earns Four Pinocchios for false claims on inauguration crowd size". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 22, 2017. Jaffe, Alexandra. "Kellyanne Conway: WH Spokesman Gave 'Alternative Facts' on Inauguration Crowd". NBC News. Retrieved January 22, 2017. Blake, Aaron (January 22, 2017). "Kellyanne Conway says Donald Trump's team has 'alternative facts.' Which pretty much says it all". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2018. DePaulo, Bella (December 7, 2017). "Perspective - I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 30, 2018. DePaulo, Bella (December 9, 2017). "How President Trump's Lies Are Different From Other People's". Psychology Today. Retrieved March 30, 2018. Lind, Dara (October 26, 2016). "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". Vox. Retrieved March 30, 2018. Smith, Jeremy Adam (March 24, 2017). "How the Science of "Blue Lies" May Explain Trump's Support". Scientific American. Retrieved March 30, 2017. Fahrenthold, David (October 4, 2016). "Trump's co-author on 'The Art of the Deal' donates $55,000 royalty check to charity". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 26, 2017. "Journalist Says Trump Foundation May Have Engaged In 'Self-Dealing'". NPR. September 28, 2016. Retrieved March 1, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help) Eder, Steve (October 3, 2016). "State Attorney General Orders Trump Foundation to Cease Raising Money in New York". The New York Times. Retrieved March 1, 2017. Fahrenthold, David A. (November 22, 2016). "Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on 'self-dealing,' new filing to IRS shows". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2018. Farhi, Paul (April 10, 2017). "Washington Post's David Fahrenthold wins Pulitzer Prize for dogged reporting of Trump's philanthropy". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 11, 2017. The Pulitzer Prizes (April 10, 2017). "2017 Pulitzer Prize: National Reporting". The Pulitzer Prizes. Retrieved April 10, 2017. Dawsey, Josh; Paletta, Damian; Werner, Erica. "In fundraising speech, Trump says he made up trade claim in meeting with Justin Trudeau". The Washington Post. Retrieved 15 March 2018. "Trump on Birtherism: Wrong, and Wrong". FactCheck. September 16, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "Trump's False claim Clinton started Obama birther talk". PolitiFact. September 16, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "Trump's electoral college victory not a 'massive landslide'". PolitiFact. December 11, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "Trump Landslide? Nope". FactCheck. November 29, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018. Seipel, Arnie (December 11, 2016). "FACT CHECK: Trump Falsely Claims A 'Massive Landslide Victory'". NPR. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "Pants on Fire for Trump claim that millions voted illegally". PolitiFact. November 27, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "Trump Claims Without Evidence that 3 to 5 Million Voted Illegally, Vows Investigation". Snopes. January 25, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "FALSE: Donald Trump Opposed the Iraq War from the Beginning". Snopes. September 27, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "Trump repeats wrong claim that he opposed Iraq War". PolitiFact. September 7, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "Donald Trump and the Iraq War". FactCheck. February 19, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.

Atsme, please look this over for any potential BLP vios. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a good start, but we should avoid excessive quotes and specific examples. The subject should be covered at a high level. There are just too many lies to from which to draw just a few representative examples.- MrX 🖋 03:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The last sentence lists only a few "specific examples". I did choose the "high level", the scholarly, serious, professional approach, rather than sensational and opinions. Getting into opinions here would make the section too large. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX, your criticism would ring more true if you had read it before commenting. Your comment was written and published in less than a minute after my content was published. Unless you can read all of my content and then write and publish your comment very fast.... 02:37 >> 03:14. You did all of that in 37 seconds. Impressive! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh? I commented 36 minutes after you posted your text.- MrX 🖋 03:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm so sorry! I don't know what I was thinking. Minutes...seconds....big difference. My apologies. Let's start over. I still don't see how your comment really applies, as my few "specific examples" are only in the last sentence, with very few others. The Trudeau one was already in the presidential article, but we could leave it out. It's interesting as it's a rare example of Trump admitting he was lying. He doesn't usually do that, doesn't care, or seem to even know the difference. It's as if the idea of "truth" is foreign to him. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

BR, you're not seriously suggesting that we put this massive (even if sourced) essay into a minor subsection of an article the size of this? The subject of his dishonesty can have at most two paragraphs. At most. --MelanieN (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I think we need to generalize more, and distill the various angles into a cohesive summary. Obviously, your proposed content is focused on his presidency, but we also need to cover falsehoods before and during the campaign. I'm opposed to attributing views to individuals, when it is obvious that at least some of those views can be asserted in Misplaced Pages's voice. Saying that fact checkers have rated a few of Trump's claims as false is a WP:WEASELy way of saying Trump has made false claims that Obama wasn't born in the United States, that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement, that his electoral college victory was a "landslide", that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes, and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".- MrX 🖋 14:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I must admit that some of that makes no sense. I'm not sure what your point is. I provided that content as something to work with. Go ahead and use it or not, but you're welcome to provide some proposed content that illustrates what you mean. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

So what do you call it when someone gets the facts wrong? Is that lying? What about when you're thinking someone is talking about the blue car, and you say no, the seats are beige, but they're actually talking about the red car with white leather. Is that lying? What about when you don't reveal all of your strategy when making a deal, and just say what you think will get the deal made - is that lying? Oh, and the fact that other presidents didn't use Twitter, or make as many public statements as this one - does that count? I say it's FALSE EQUIVALENCY to say one president lied more than another if you don't use a fair comparison. How many speeches and tweets did Trump engage in during his first 100 days vs Obama, or Bush, or Clinton? This whole falsehood thing is just plain ridiculous. 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, do you really fail to grasp that such reasoning is completely outside our purview as Misplaced Pages editors? RS clearly says Trump breaks new ground in the falsehood area, and that ends the discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"do you really fail to grasp..." WP:NPA please, Mandruss. The discussion is ended? Why? This holding onto POV content and lack of balance is the perfect example of why "verifiability over truth" is an incredibly flawed policy, and in the end is one of the main reasons why Misplaced Pages will never be considered a reliable source. In this case (as with so many others), common sense and a strict adherence to true balance is what should supercede "we follow the sources". Why can't we discuss making that happen? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, by my count, in this discussion you have said "lie", "liar", or "lying" six times - and yet NO ONE has proposed putting any variation of that word into the article, and it isn't there now. We have avoided, for years, saying "liar" in Misplaced Pages's voice, and if I have anything to say about it we never will. So please drop that non-existent controversy. From now on, any time you claim we are proposing to add "lying" or "liar" to the article, we will disregard everything else you say in that paragraph, because you are clearly not paying attention. As for "BLP" or "BLP violation", I believe you have invoked that six times as well, and that is frankly ridiculous. The man has been reported, over and over, by numerous reliable sources, to have made and continue to make a extremely unusual number of "false or misleading" statements. For us not to say so would be a violation of neutrality amounting to censorship. It would certainly not be a violation of BLP, much less PUBLICFIGURE. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC) BTW I proposed above that the balancing material you added - from the March 2018 NYT article - be restored, but that will depend on whether it gets consensus.

Why is this discussion going off on a tangent? Jiminy Cricket, can it get anymore ridiculous? MrX specifically stated a no-no in his edit summary, so please don't even try to compare it to my examples. We should not be generalizing a contentious statement in Wikivoice which is not compliant with NPOV and doesn't even accurately represent what exceptional sources have said: Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks. It automatically begs the question, what statements were false? Are you forgetting how many readers we have that don't hate Trump, and actually support his policies? This isn't about what you or I like or don't like. It's about getting the article right. I'm saying we need to more closely reflect what exceptional sources have said, and to use inline citations and in-text attribution to quote contentious statements per MOS & NPOV - Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source) which is why I wrote: Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements during his first 100 days as president, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks. Linda Qiu with The New York Times wrote: "The Times has logged at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office. There was no valid reason to revert that edit, Melanie. We need to more closely adhere to policy by using in-text attribution cited to quotes in the source, and to qualify how the media made their determination that he made false, exaggerated or distorted claims. MrX reverted my edit for no good reason and that is disruptive. I'm left with no other option but to call an RfC and get consensus in an effort to be compliant with policy, and that's pretty sad when any editor has to work under such conditions. 06:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, one more time: People can say "lie" in an edit summary, that is not a BLP violation. They can say "liar" on the talk page, that is not a BLP violation. We have not said "lie" or "liar" in the article in Misplaced Pages’s voice, and stop talking as if that is what people were proposing to do. The statement you quoted here - "Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks" - is totally compliant with NPOV; to leave it out would be a violation of neutrality and balance. It does not "beg the question"; on the contrary it supports it with references that lay out in great and specific detail exactly what statements were false. A similar statement has been confirmed by consensus over and over. Finally, whether anyone "loves" or "hates" Trump is beside the point (I’ve been accused of both). As Misplaced Pages editors we are supposed to edit neutrally based on reliable sources, and you might be surprised (if you would Assume Good Faith) how many of us actually try to do that. Reliable sources mostly say "false and misleading"; that is their consensus reporting; "exaggerated or distorted" is not. Go ahead and call an RfC, if you like, and if you can make a coherent proposal out of what you are requesting comment on. But in the meantime, your proposed edits have been challenged and cannot be restored without consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You cannot be serious with that purprosed text right? That gives just an astounding amount of weight to a tiny part of his presidency, let alone his whole life. I strongly suggest you withdraw at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's something to work with and can be pared down. Much of it is already the content in the section at the presidency article. The only reason many of the other sections in this article are so small is that they are the summaries of spinoff articles.

As far as the "weight" argument, keep in mind that this is arguably one of his most notable character traits often described by RS (narcissim, dishonesty, bullying), and fundamental to all he does, without exception. That makes it important enough to be the largest section, but I don't think that would be a good idea.

A separate article, with a summary and hatnote "main" link here, would be the ideal solution, but the proper way to start that process is with a section that balloons until it creates an undue weight situation, forcing the spinoff. That's the right way to do it.

You mention his presidency, but this is about his whole life. It carries more weight here than in the presidency article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"this is arguably one of his most notable character traits (narcissim, dishonesty, bullying" Narcissism is a psychological, mental illness diagnosis and I'm betting you're not qualified to make that diagnosis. Dishonesty is measured by different yardsticks depending on your political preference - be honest, what president hasn't been guilty of it? Bullying is a subjective assessment and also measured by different yardsticks dependent on whatever side of the political fence you reside. Bill Clinton's accusers in the way of sexual abuse, rape, harassment most certainly refer to him as a bully (not to mention he was dishonest enough that he ended up being impeached for it). Aside from all this, WP:UNDUE does apply several times over in regard to your proposed text. And please remember to follow BLP guidelines for discussion on article subjects. If you don't have an official diagnosis to prove Trump is a narcissist, you should strike that comment as it is a violation of BLP guidelines for talk pages. We don't comment on the mental health of article subjects without reliable sources to support such commentary. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I added "often described by RS" for your sake. We base our content on RS, not (just) on diagnoses. As far as dishonesty, NO, we based such judgements on verified facts, and RS document this in abundance. It's not a partisan issue, unless you make it one. As an editor you need to leave your politics out of this. If you can't see the difference between a false and true statement, then something's wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how my push for NPOV and following policy could ever be confused with political bias. I guarantee you, no one here has any clue to my political leanings. Speculation and inaccurate assumption over someone's political ideology is inappropriate and has no place in WP:FOC. I would appreciate it if you would discontinue the attempts at gaslighting, as well, as such behavior is not WP:CIVIL and only serves to degrade discussion that should be productive. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you're "not sure"? Maybe this? "Dishonesty is measured by different yardsticks depending on your political preference." Or your whataboutism about Bill Clinton? Stay on-topic. Don't deflect. We don't fall for such things here.

"Different yardsticks"? That's BS, unless you're referring to the editors who keep downplaying Trump's dishonesty by repeating "all politicians lie", when Trump is a complete outlier, with a wide gap between him and all other politicians. They refuse to acknowledge that Trump leads the pack by far, including when compared to other Republicans. Those editors certainly are using a different yardstick based on personal POV (and even, quite literally, that he won the election, so "who cares"). No, he doesn't get a free pass, or get judged by a different affluenza yardstick here.

The "yardstick" we use, and RS use, is exactly the same one applied to all other public persons and politicians. Fact checkers are nonpartisan, with objective yardsticks. They are experts at judging degrees of truth and falsehood, and when they call something a "lie", they aren't describing an "exaggeration" or "misstatement"; it's a "lie". It's not their opinion. It's objective, measurable, fact, not subject to interpretation.

BTW, your political leaning is pretty evident from what you write, how you comment, how you edit, and your fellow travelers. Don't try to hide it or be embarrassed to admit it. It's okay to have such. We all have leanings. Just don't allow it to affect your editing. In your case, and several others, it comes to expression in censorship and seeking to keep out anything negative about Trump, regardless of how well-sourced. If it's any comfort, you aren't the worst around here. Sometimes you shine through and manage to edit against your own POV. Good for you. We should all seek to do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Stay on-topic. Don't deflect. We don't fall for such things here." Lol! Thanks for the best laugh over irony and deflection I will likely have all week. Maybe the remainder of the month. Truth is, from getting to know you better through your talk page comments, I'm pretty sure you may have written the manual for deflecting and veering off-topic (your gaslighting efforts are transparent and have not gone unnoticed by others in addition to me, BR). As far as my political leanings -- sorry, but you really have me un-pegged and no clue where I stand politically. Truly, you don't. I know that hive-mindedness and groupthink are the thing these days, but my politics go back to the Eisenhower Administration (yes, I was alive then) when live and let live was an American value, no one really cared what someone else's political leanings were, and along with religion, politics were just not talked about among strangers. I long for those days to return, but probably will not live long enough to every see the pendulum swing that direction again. In Misplaced Pages, my only political leanings are in the way of neutral editing, honesty in content, and NPOV tone in articles - that's it. And really, if Misplaced Pages's policies took WP:OUTING seriously and that policy were complete, trying to guess or claiming one knows the politics of others when they haven't announced it would be a violation. It's no different than trying to guess someone's occupation or where they live. None of it is anyone else's business unless the editor being "investigated" by those opposing their very presence here chose to disclose it. In other words, just stop. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

TPP withdrawal

Howdy. Back from my wikibreak, I noticed that the US withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership had been removed from the lead paragraph summarizing major foreign policy actions under Trump. I restored it, and Volunteer Marek removed it again (he first removed this on 13 April). I do believe that both withdrawals from TPP and the Paris Accord are significant policy moves and share equal weight. Accordingly, both should be in the lead. Let's discuss. — JFG 10:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Point of clarification: Trump withdrew from the negotiating process of the TPP, which effectively killed the entire agreement and necessitated the creation of an entirely new agreement. Nevertheless, I agree with JFG that this is a major foreign policy action of the Trump administration. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why my wording was Trump withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations. Looking forward to more comments. — JFG 08:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Please weigh in on this, and explain more fully why you reverted. I think JFG's language is absolutely accurate and worthy of its position in the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mention of the Russia controversy in the lead

Hey User:Objective3000, the comment says not to remove but there is not problem in doing so; Portal:Donald Trump/Intro works just well without that paragraph. Could you self revert as this is WP:UNDUE and nothing has been proven yet? L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems DUE considering the massive coverage in RS, 22 indictments, and all the connections to the Trump presidential campaign, whether or not direct collusion of Trump will be ultimately shown. O3000 (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. I'm still not convinced we should mention this incident in the lead though. It already stated in the article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the lead is supposed to include material already in the article. This material is highly significant.- MrX 🖋 19:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Certainly appears significant to the subject of the article, given the number of times he brings it up. O3000 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Further down MOS:LEADREL it says: ...although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. How about letting us know exactly what material is being referenced here? 16:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

(When starting a discussion about an editing dispute, please provide contextfor others. The discussion is for everybody, not just the two immediately involved (otherwise it could be done at a user talk page). The edits may not be at the top of the page history for long, and besides, why make people go there to find out what you're talking about? Thanks.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(L293D, the hidden comment refers to the <section end=Lead text /> tag, not the content preceding it.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

O3000 - perhaps I've misunderstood your point, but material is not necessarily DUE simply because it received "massive coverage" and that isn't a good reason why it should remain in the article. You appear to be confusing WP:GNG with WP:V, the latter of which is pretty much all that is required for inclusion of material in an article. In fact, WP:DUE is about the representation of all significant viewpoints in RS, and that it should be represented ...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. WP:BALANCE states: "...discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." And you might also check out Misplaced Pages:Citation_overkill#In-article conflict and #Reprints in that same essay. 07:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

the latter of which is pretty much all that is required for inclusion of material in an article. - WP:ONUS, part of WP:V, says otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

...material is not necessarily DUE simply because it received "massive coverage".... Pretty sure there was an "and" and two additional reasons in my post. O3000 (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey O3000, I sort of understand this but do we need to have whole paragraph in the lead of the article for this? There is not even a mere mention of Hillary Clinton's e-mail controversy in the lead at Hillary Clinton. And the Hillary's E-mail controversy did receive significant coverage. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose having the email thing in Hillary Clinton's lead.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Last I checked, WP:NPOV still had the sentence, "but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject", ergo, massive coverage means it is due Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Disagree: (1) "massive coverage" could be the result of reprints of a wire agency report and/or reprints of a primary source article which counts as one source; (2) WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG, WP:TOOMUCH, WP:RS AGE and NOTCRYSTALBALL, the latter of which states (my bold underline): Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. I'm still unsure what material is being discussed in this instance, but I do know that unsupported allegations don't get a free pass just because it's published on 20 different news sites. Our job is to use editorial judgment and discretion when considering biased opinions, unsubstantiated allegations and derogatory material about a BLP, which includes not saying it in WikiVoice, especially when the source is an opinion piece, commentary or analysis. 14:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"massive coverage" could be the result of reprints of a wire agency report…. Well, it could be. But that has nothing to do with this case since it has been weekly, often daily, news for a year in innumerable sources. There have been 22 indictments. The subject of the article talks about it weekly. And we aren’t predicting, forecasting, or speculating about anything. O3000 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Russia controversy in the lead: Arbitrary break

The sixth and last paragraph of the lead says:

"After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel in an investigation into coordination or links between the Trump campaign and Russian government in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and related matters. Trump has repeatedly denied any such collusion."

This appears to WP:UNDUE weight to an incident that has yet to be proven. Yes, it has received massive media coverage, but most similar incidents are not even mentioned in the lead for other articles. For example, take Hillary Clinton, there is not even mention of her e-mail controversy, even if it received massive media coverage. So do you want the paragraph to be removed? L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and for context, I initially removed the content, but was reverted but Objective3000. As I am not allowed to reinstate previously challenged material, I am posting here. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000 (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You say it's received "massive" media coverage. Then it's not UNDUE according to our content rules. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Emerging from my AP2 avoidance for this one point of reference: Both Clinton articles mention the Lewinsky scandal in the lead and Reagan's mentions Iran-Contra. The Russia investigation, regardless of the outcome, has arguably received more coverage and taken up more press than either of those. No opinion on it in the lead, but I thought it worth mentioning if OTHERSTUFF was going to be brought up. Now back to not commenting on anything AP2 content-wise. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, the Lewinsky scandal led to former president Clinton being impeached by the House so yes, it belonged in the lead. We don't see anything about Fast and Furious in the lead of Barrack Obama because...well, I don't quite know. I did not see mention of Iran-Contra in Reagan's lead, but keep in mind, Reagan was admonished for not knowing about it, and the conclusion of the investigations "resulted in fourteen indictments within Reagan's staff, and eleven convictions. The Trump-Russia controversy has produced -0- evidence that Trump himself was involved in any of it, but we have article after article filled with speculation and allegations that he was - apparently a partisan project that wants to impeach the guy. Ok, I'll leave you alone now. 14:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

L293D already started a thread above on the exact same subject.Talk:Donald_Trump#revert You don't get to restart the exact same discussion in a new section. Someone uninvolved should hat this. O3000 (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll not hat it, but I'll attach it to the existing thread and improve the section headings. @L293D:, please don't create redundant threads, for reasons that should be obvious. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

North Korea in lead

Yesterday I updated the information about the North Korea situation in the lead section, and Signedzzz reverted, saying "restore neutral, verifiable version". I submit that my version is just as neutral and verifiable, and is more accurate given the current state of the negotiating process. Calling our fellow editors to pick a version. — JFG 08:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Version A

He accepted an invitation from North Korean leader Kim Jong-un for direct talks regarding the latter's nuclear weapons program.

Version B

He pressured North Korea over their nuclear weapons program, and scheduled a summit with Kim Jong-un towards denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Survey on North Korea status

• Version B – More informative and up to date. Per my original edit summary, Kim-Jong-un didn't wake up one morning and say "gee, I guess I should invite my old chap The Dotard to a treat of noodles." The reality is that US and China applied exceptional pressure on the North Korean economy, so that Kim was forced to come to the negotiating table. In turn, he played the high-ground maneuver by making big friendly gestures to South Korea, and Moon played good cop to Kim by agreeing to take de-escalating steps, and restore sensible relations between the two Koreas. All considered, Trump's bio should mention Trump's role in this process, and not be reduced to the fantasy that NoKo and SoKo did their thing spontaneously, and only then invited US to the ceremony. — JFG 08:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Version A is more neutral and accurate, however it should be reworded to avoid the construct "regarding the latter's nuclear weapons program". Also, we should not rely on Fox News as the only source for this content.- MrX 🖋 12:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• B. It's accurate. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version B: um, it's what every single news agency is reporting. Do we have to have an RFC to determine if the sky is blue? – Lionel 13:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version A The sky isn’t always blue. I don’t see how anyone can argue with A. I can see neutrality arguments over B. O3000 (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version B is the most up to date and accurate. The wording is improved. Easy choice. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version B Considerably more accurate, neutral, and per sources. PackMecEng (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version B Much more accurate and up to date. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version A Besides name-calling, Trump did absolutely nothing to put additional pressure on North Korea that wasn't already being done by previous administrations. It's not at all clear why North Korea suddenly and unexpectedly offered talks with the US. The mainstream media has speculated it may be for many reasons, including (but not limited to) the success of the Winter Olympics collaboration with South Korea and the apparent disaster at the primary North Korean nuclear testing facility. Apart from in fringe right-wing sources, there's very little support for the revisionist nonsense espoused in version B. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Version B - Pompeo NBC summarized: We've watched administration apply pressure and now, we've watched come to the negotiating table." 15:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

1. RS clearly support B - NYTimes "President Trump and South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in, say their policy of “maximum pressure” on the government of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, has helped bring him to the bargaining table.", and The Guardian published the announcement by Chung Eui-yong, Seoul’s national security office chief: "I explained to President Trump that his leadership and his maximum pressure policy, together with international solidarity, brought us to this juncture."
2. Washington Post: "Trump has told aides to schedule his summit with Kim in late May or early June, and CIA Director Mike Pompeo made a secret trip about two weeks ago to meet Kim in Pyongyang." Option A is dubious, and fails to mention the basic premise that sanctions/economic pressures are why Kim Jong Un agreed to meet with Trump and would consider dismantling his nuke program. 21:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Version B seems to be the clear choice. Sir Joseph 15:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version B is far more accurate, with a possible addition re: the widespread rumblings of the Nobel Peace Prize for Trump, even from news orgs that serve as the DNC's de facto communications team. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version B--MONGO 17:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Something else Version B probably gives Trump too much credit by suggesting a causality between the pressure and the summit when there were probably other factors involved (Olympics for example). Version A doesn't give Trump enough credit, suggesting that it was Kim who set things up. I could live with something like having just the second half of B, saying that he set up a summit with Kim, and that drops the vague "applied pressure". ~Awilley (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• The sources clearly say Trump applied pressure and many suggest his efforts were successful, so if we're following RS's option B does a better job of reflecting them. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose any of these. I'm not sure it's worth including this in the lead until after the summit actually happens. Both proposals seem acceptable in the meantime, though "pressured" isn't a great choice of word IMO. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version A - B is original research, misappropriating passing mentions of the word "pressure" to spin a narrative no RS has presented, that Trump's clown tactics could influence the NK's to surrender their nukes. SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version A. There are only two sentences in the article about the meeting (which may or may not take place, according to developing news), so the current brief mention in the lead is more than sufficient. Also, a A couple of semantic points about objections to your proposed wording:

1. JFG: If you have any RS to support saying that Trump pressured Kim into anything, please present them, because I searched and didn’t find any. The word pressure was used by Trump, Pompeo, and Sanders, and they were quoted verbatim by, for example, Fox News, which is the only source for the two sentences in the article and says that "Trump unexpectedly accepted an offer of talks."
2. If you have any RS to support saying that Trump scheduled the meeting, please present them, because I searched and didn’t find any. When two countries agree on a date and place for a meeting between their heads of state, they scheduled it. Saying that one of the parties scheduled it makes it sound like "be there or else." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on North Korea status

The last thing we, as an encyclopedia, should do is claim to know the inner workings of Kim Jong-un's mind. We must stay neutral. O3000 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Please point out wherever this occurs so we can deal with it. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I did. Version B suggests we know why Kim Jong-un made a decision. O3000 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"pressured North Korea" does not suggest we know why Kim Jong-un made a decision.

In any event, it is pretty ubiquitously stated in the RS's that Trump "pressured" North Korea. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Putting both some increase in pressure and the summit in the same sentence suggests a connection which is not known. O3000 (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Per the sources, which you apparently disagree with? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked at one of your sources, and you misrepresented it. The source stated in great detail that there exist opposing views on any connection, or if this is a success or failure. We must stay neutral. O3000 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "misrepresent" any source. That's a dumb accusation and I request you strike it. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Vox gave two arguments: one that Trump succeeded and the other that he failed. You quoted from one argument and ignored the other suggesting that Vox favored your position. That was a misrepresentation, and I suggest you stop telling other editors to strike their comments. O3000 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

In what fantasy make-believe world is that a "misrepresentation"? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

In the world of Neutrality. O3000 (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You have no reading comprehension. I didn't say Vox supported Trump, I said they published a POV suggesting Trump's pressure may have worked, and that is a fact.

Moreover you're ignoring all the other sources. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You have no reading comprehension. I do not respond to churlish insults. O3000 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I had already said I didn't say what you said I said, but you continued insisting I said things I never said. "No reading comprehension" is just a way of summarizing that.

Again, the sources state ubiquitously that Trump pressured North Korea, and many sources credit Trump's pressure for producing a breakthrough. That's objective reality for ya. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

And you again misrepresent one of your own cites. You cherry-picked a sentence when the article also provides an opposing argument. The article as a whole does not support your position. But, what do I know? I have no reading comprehension. O3000 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: If you cannot understand what you are reading, there are only so many ways to say it, and none of them is going to sound like a compliment.

User:Scjessey said a bunch of patent nonsense utterly misrepresenting RS's, falsely claiming that RS's have not speculated that Trump's "pressure" may have contributed to a diplomatic breakthrough, and falsely claiming that that POV comes from "fringe right-wing sources" .

It is quite easy to see that this is not remotely true, and so I posted a bunch of fact RS coverage referring to Trump's diplomatic pressure campaign and various POVs arguing it was a success or may turn out to be a success.

The RS commentary generally discusses Trump's pressure as a contributing factor, which is what I said, and this was not a misrepresentation in any way. And again: your obsessive fixation on this one non-issue regarding one source completely ignores all the other sourcing. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: your comment is ignorant and insulting. Please strike it and apologize for your offensive wrongness. It is very well established that Trump has been pressuring NK, , and The New York Times even refers to "levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining table."

The commentary generally says his pressure may have paid off, e.g. the top foreign policy analyst at Brookings Institute clearly suggests Trump's military threats may have influenced Kim's decision. Sources abound, here are a few:

• White House officials are ratcheting up pressure on North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in advance of a summit between him and President Donald Trump in Singapore on June 12, where the two leaders are expected to discuss denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Both sides say they hope for a breakthrough.
• The Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign against North Korea is working. That is, if “working” is defined by creating an environment in which Kim Jong Un has great incentive to cooperatively dismantle his nuclear missile program.
• As the U.S.-North Korea summit looms, President Donald Trump's maximum pressure policy on North Korea may be working — thanks to China.
• Republican Sen. Ron Johnson said Sunday that President Donald Trump must continue to ratchet up pressure on North Korea to denuclearize, even as the two countries prepare to meet for talks.
• Trump’s hardline position, combined with increasing economic pressure, sends a message to the North that this time, the United States means business. Trump’s crudeness, on this theory, is useful inasmuch as it signals a break from the past. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion, O3000. The event as reported by NBC indicates the opposite is true, regardless of your opinion about Pompeo or anyone else, which is actually what impedes NPOV, not what JFG has proposed to add per "B". In fact, The Guardian stated: "Administration officials portrayed the invitation as a victory for Trump’s policy of “maximum pressure” and stressed that the US would not relax its stringent sanctions regime before North Korea began disarming." 17:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about and haven’t said a word about Pompeo or NBC. And of course the White House said the White House was victorious. I’m sure Kim’s administration said Kim was victorious. How is that meaningful? My “conclusion” is that I have no idea what’s going on and we should remain neutral. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, O3000 - I struck that part of my comment, and will further acknowledge that your responses have actually been collegial, even though I disagree with your position. 18:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 please point out how version B suggests we know why Kim made a decision. I can't see it. Also please point out in the sentence what decision Kim made that you are referring to. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Including both the fact that there was pressure and that Kim was willing to talk in the same sentence suggests a connection. After all, the two events are connected by a conjunction. Of course it's not that simple. Pressure has been severe and increasing for a long time. Kim appears to have completed his testing, and his test site is collapsing, and his reactor is on its last legs, and there is a newish SK President who ran on reconciliation with NK, and there was the recent SK Olympics with close NK/SK participance. Besides, Lucy (Kim) has pulled the football several times in the past. What I am saying is I have no idea what goes through the mind of Kim (and not sure I want to see into his mind), and think we should remain neutral -- not suggesting a connection that may or may not be valid and even if valid is but one of many factors. O3000 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

But, as previously mentioned, isn't this connection made by RS's? E.g. the New York Times piece that refers to "the two levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining table." That's pretty explicit in saying that Trump pressured Kim to talk. The same article also cites "senior officials and analysts" in saying that Trump's military threats contributed to Kim's decision to talk. I'm sure other sources say similar things. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, news just coming out is that NK cancelled a meeting with SK scheduled for today and just threatened to scrap the summit with Trump. RECENTISM raises its head again. We must be careful and avoid overly optimist wording. O3000 (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been off Misplaced Pages for a few hours and just come back to a shit storm on my talk page about Mike Pompeo. I stand by every comment I have made and make no apology. This article specifically uses the same "Trump's lackey" terminology. In a Google search of news sources, "Trump lackey" gets 1,700 hits, so it is a legitimate description. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Psssst...Scjessey, the Washington Press is less than unreliable...there is no evidence of fact-checking, who funds the sight, who the editor-in-chief is, and it comes across as pure propaganda (not unlike the WND site). It's not getting good reviews at RS/N, either. You might want to reconsider your position, and stand down considering BLP requires: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. 03:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok but your other comments about "revisionist nonsense" and "fringe right-wing sources" were just ignorant and insulting and I still request you strike them. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion. I think the notion that North Korea's actions are based on Trump's actions is absurd. I will not be changing anything, and you are simply wasting everyone's time by perpetuating the mock outrage, which is what this really is, isn't it? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

We have two leaders that are known for making ultimata and switching back and forth on various issues. Today, NK has threatened to withdraw from the summit. I imagine this will switch back and forth. I don’t see why we should include anything at all about this in the lede for the DJT article, at least until the summit occurs. It certainly belongs in an article about N. Korea. WP:RECENTISM WP:NOTNEWS. O3000 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, this is the section for discussion, so please move your discussion out of the iVote section to this section - thought maybe editors would be reminded after seeing the other hatted discussions. Thanks in advance.... 12:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh? I voted, and explained why I voted against JFG's proposed edit, points 1 & 2. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, I hatted an extended discussion by S4T3C2x that was reverted by SPECIFICO. I’m not going to edit war over it, but if other extended discussions are hatted, and editors have been asked repeatedly to not distract from the iVote section, I have to ask if some editors are granted special favors over the rest of us that allows what just happened to happen? I’m sure we can fill this page with explanations for why we voted the way we did and JFG and create distractions to push a POV but I don’t think it’s appropriate when editors have been asked specifically to discuss in this section. 16:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion? I voted, you claimed my vote was a discussion, I responded with "say what" and clarified the wording of my vote. Four edits, the end. Hadn't even noticed that in between you had hatted part of my vote and Specifico unhatted it (thanks, Specifico). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not what you did - you created a list apparently as "back door" support of your own POV beginning with: JFG: If you have any RS to support saying that Trump pressured Kim into anything, please present them, because I searched and didn’t find any. I also presented sources above, so if you had come here to discuss, you would have seen them. 18:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, that is not what I did. I reverted your edit, (that would be you as in Atsme) in which you hatted part of a content discussion for no good reason. That other stuff, I have no idea what you're talking about. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO - huh? My comments were directed to Space4Time3Continuum2x, not you. I presented your action accurately; i.e., "...that was reverted by SPECIFICO" period the end. I hatted the extraneous 2 point list by S4T3C2x that challenged JFG - and it should have stayed hatted or moved to this section. You should self-revert or redo the hat. 19:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This is completely incomprehensible. Are you stating that because you misrepresented my action but did not address that statement to me, I should not correct you? SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Enough badgering already. I've got better things to do with my time. 21:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Well then. Count me among the dozens of weary editors whose fervent wish it is that you will do them all. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I see a single longish vote that is split up into a list. ~Awilley (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing-up that little misunderstanding on my part, Awilley. Shouldn't the other "longish votes" be unhatted, too? 20:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any hatted votes in that section. I can't tell if you're trying to be difficult, trying to make a joke, or if you legitimately can't tell the difference between a top level vote and threaded replies to other people's votes. Or are you hung up on the fact that the user addressed JFG in their vote? If that's the case, recall that JFG is the OP so all the votes are in a way responding to them. ~Awilley (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of process RE: informal polls after routine reverts

I am copying several posts that Mandruss hatted. Arguably they didn't belong in their former location, thank you Mandrus! But they are relevant to how we do business on this talk page, so I have unhatted and presented them below

SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• This was reverted because it is no good. It's flippant, unsupported original research, it promotes a narrative that's already been rejected after a lot of wasted discussion over the past year or so, and it is contradicted by the overwhelming weight of RS accounts of these developments. Cloaking a bad edit in a welter of trite cliche and racial slurring about "noodles" does not help talk page discussion. It's not necessary to fight tooth-and-nail with these "informal polls" on every bad edit that gets reverted. I suggest OP withdraw this section and move on to other issues. SPECIFICO talk 12:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• This wasn't a fight until you tried to make it one. That's the pattern, I've noticed. Any editor may dispute any edit they wish and start any discussion they wish. That's what this page is for. If you wish to file some kind of disruption or POV-pushing complaint, AE is that way (as I believe I've told you before); otherwise I would appreciate you altering your approach to opposing editors and JFG in particular. Your persistent sniping is unhelpful. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Mandruss, you know very well that these "informal polls" serve no purpose in our WP process. They are not dispositive, as an RfC would be, and they promote endless tail-chasing. And what comes of it? Half the time there's then dispute over what the poll decided. Then what? If that's resolved it goes on the meaningless "consensus list" atop the article, another stupid idea. When an edit is reverted, it's often a good idea simply to move on to other matters. If there were overwhelming support for the Korea version B, it would have emerged without the pouty-faced cute racist slur about noodles and the next 2 weeks of POV A-B that is now set in motion. So I hope you'll reconsider your pattern recognition proclivities and expertise. Cheerio what au revoir. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Many durable consensuses have been established by these surveys which you say serve no purpose. And there is fairly wide agreement that the consensus list has been a benefit to this article, saving us from rehashing the same issues over and over again because it's too much trouble to hunt down the supporting discussions and argue about whether they show an actual consensus. I'm not aware of a single regular editor here who shares your view on that. So please, take note of the fact that you have little or no support for your views, and don't present them as fact. I'm collapsing this as off topic and unconstructive. Feel free to post a !vote below and/or continue this discussion on my UTP. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments on this talk page and WP:BLPTALK

WP:BLPTALK states, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." and editors are arguing that some of their comments are related to making content choices. However the "not related to making content choices" exception does not mean that editors are free to denigrate living people if they can somehow tie it to content. For example, saying that "x is a pathological liar and we shouldn't give her lies any credence" will get you sanctioned. Do the extra work, provide a reliable source that says "x is a habitual liar whose statements are often false", and refrain from giving the impression that you are offering a personal opinion of the subject. If necessary, I am prepared to add a new AE restriction to that effect but I hope it won't come to that. --NeilN 21:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: In that case, BLPTALK seriously needs clarifying, and that is not wikilawyering but common sense. Unless my vision is even worse than I thought, there is nothing at BLPTALK that states or implies what you said above. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:34, 15 May 2018 (

Thank you for that, NeilN. That was my main concern, as the argument was being made that since a borderline fake-news website (Washington Press) attacked a living person, then somehow it's acceptable for us to do it as well (and the source didn't even use the same language). When I see "related to making content choices," I think in terms of "We should say this, because the source says this...but the source doesn't say that" sort of thing. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, I believe that common sense dictates that an editor can't say "X is a pedophile and we should add that to the article" with no sources and claim that BLP doesn't apply because the comment relates to content. I freely acknowledge that the interpretation I stated above may be more restrictive than usual but I'm prepared to implement that as a AE restriction if need be. --NeilN 21:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: As written, the policy sets two separate conditions that must be met for a comment to be a violation. (1) Unsourced or poorly sourced. (2) Not related to making content choices. They are joined by the logical operator AND, not OR. I am finding it extremely difficult for my "common sense" to override what the thing actually says. What you, I, or anybody else feels it should say is beside the point for the purposes of editor behavior and enforcement. If you have the authority to unilaterally implement it as an AE restriction separate from policy, that would be an improvement over the status quo. At least the expectations would be clear. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: This conversation should probably be continued at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons but "OR" probably isn't going to work. We're not going to sanction two editors having a casual argument about what was X's best movie on one of their talk pages. --NeilN 22:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

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