Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103→Archive 105

New allegations of sexual assault / rape

trump recently has been accused of another sexual assult..it needs to be in the article 2600:1702:2340:9470:3108:93CE:D0C9:FBB6 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

What is an alligation? What is assult? Learn to spell, learn to cite, and leave your name, and maybe you could be taken seriously.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I would have said there is already enough here on the general subject and it belongs in the main article on the misconduct allegations. But, there is the word "rape" this time. O3000 (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
There is. 2600:1702:2340:9470:3108:93CE:D0C9:FBB6 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Whether or not it should be included here will depend on the degree of coverage it receives going forward. TFD (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
TFD: Not necessarily.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 00:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that every day Trump tweets or says or does something or is accused of having done something outrageous. If we include every single one of them, the article will become unreadable. Suppose for example that we had separate paragraphs for each of other 20+ accusers? TFD (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the wait-and-see approach. There are too many controversies to cover here and this isn't even the first allegation of this nature. We'll have to access the degree of coverage before we determine weight.LM2000 (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: see below. starship.paint (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources with main subject being Carroll's allegation
  1. Associated Press (news agency)
  2. Agence France Presse (news agency, this page in German)
  3. BBC (British company)
  4. Jerusalem Post (Israeli company)
  5. CBC (Canadian company)
  6. The National (United Arab Emirates company)
  7. O Globo (Brazilian company, Portuguese language)
  8. El Pais (Spanish company, Spanish language)
  9. Der Speigel (German company, German language)
  10. Beijing News (Chinese company, Chinese language)
  11. Thanh Niên (Vietnamese company, Vietnamese language)
  12. Hurriyet (Turkish company, Turkish language)
  13. DR (Danish company, Danish language)
  14. Tabnak (Iranian company)
  15. Dainik Bhaskar (Indian company, Hindi language)
  16. Radio Korea (Korean company, Korean language)
  17. de Volkskrant (Dutch newspaper, Dutch language)
  18. Gatra (Indonesian company, Indonesian language)
  19. La Chaîne Info (French company, French language)
  20. De Standaard (Belgium company, Dutch language)
  21. Ara (Spanish newspaper, Catalan language)

@TFD, LM2000, and Mandruss: I regret to say that this wasn't international news in Antarctica, but I found it was international news on every other continent.starship.paint (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

If this is a defining moment in his presidency, it belongs here. It definitely belongs in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


I strongly agree.2600:1702:2340:9470:7C6C:B088:A333:1D6B (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: - disagree with the first sentence. This is his biography, not his presidency page. The allegation relates to Trump the man, not Trump the president. starship.paint (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I consider what happens when he is president to be part of his presidency, but the same applies to his life. If this is a defining moment in his life, it belongs here. Otherwise, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. It's notable enough for Wikipedia, but this article has a much higher standard. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Trump is in every major newspaper in every continent every day. Being U.S. president makes him the major newsmaker in the world, and his personality magnifies that. In his 8 year presidency, there will be 2.922 days, hence thousands of stories. He's the lead story in today's BBC News] because of Iran. He's actually managed to turn the Iran story into three stories: a plan to bomb them, a decision not to and now an announcement of sanctions. If he isn't still on the front page today, he'll tweet something tonight that will get discussed on CNN for the next 24 hours. TFD (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
😂 What would MSM do without him? He feeds the fervor of 21st century journalism. Atsme Talk 📧 22:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
It`s called spin. 2600:1702:2340:9470:E03B:8D42:595C:FCEC (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: - stuff with Iran is about Trump the president. Trump the president has many stories, since he's the president of the U.S. This is Trump the man, it's not the same. starship.paint (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Chances are they are simply reporting from a wire service, so we count them as a single source. And let's not forget RECENTISM. Let's wait and see if the allegations have any teeth. The timing seems rather odd considering how long ago it was supposed to have happened. I'm thinking it will be as credible as the airplane allegation. Atsme Talk 📧 05:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: - Chances are they are simply reporting from a wire service, so we count them as a single source. - really, a single source? (1) It's still expanded coverage (2) Wire services don't report trivial stories, they report on significant stories around the world. (3) Likewise, newspapers don't use wire services for trivial stories, they use them for significant international stories that will be of interest to the home countries. You can't just ignore all of them as the same source. I'd say around half of those sources are not wire stories, anyway. I haven't even started finding American sources yet. starship.paint (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
See WP:NEWSORG - "Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source." Atsme Talk 📧 06:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: - thank you. I will now delete all multiples of wire services articles in the template. starship.paint (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: - I've found more sources, as far as I can tell, they are not using wire services - you are free to double check. 21 sources, because I accidentally found two sources from Spain. Do you then accept (once you've checked) that there is indeed a wide variety of sources covering this incident? starship.paint (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The President of the United States is credibly accused of rape, then he lies about never having even met his accuser, and our response is basically to shrug and say "wait and see." That is absolutely the correct response (we do indeed need to wait to see how the story develops), but it boggles the mind that we've come to this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Also of note, E. Jean Carroll's independent notability is most probably the highest out of all the accusers so far. Ivana hasn't been that independent of Trump... starship.paint (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I think there's a compelling case for mentioning this briefly in this bio. The accuser is credible, the story is a familiar one for this subject, and there are a large number of reliable sources reporting about it.- MrX 🖋 16:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
An unsubstatuated allegation that is beyond the statute of prosecution....is a nothingburger. Unless she can produce some proof aside from her word I cant see any reason it belongs in THIS article. Put it the allegations article, maybe.--MONGO (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Would you also support removing the Juanita Broaddrick rape accusation from Bill Clinton so it's only in Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations? Just wonderin' soibangla (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Wasnt Broaddrick was a reluctant witness...not someone trying to sell a book.--MONGO (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
So, she's trying to sell a book, and she gives out the juiciest part for the press to publish. Not initially reporting the crime at the time, sounds pretty reluctant to me: Receiving death threats, being driven from my home, being dismissed, being dragged through the mud, and joining the 15 women who’ve come forward with credible stories about how the man grabbed, badgered, belittled, mauled, molested, and assaulted them, only to see the man turn it around, deny, threaten, and attack them, never sounded like much fun. Also, I am a coward. starship.paint (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Others came forward prior to the election. Where was she since this happened either in the fall or spring 30 years prior to the election. I know if this traumatic vent happened to me I'd sure know the date to a greater degree of precision. But Dont think for a minute rape allegations should not be taken seriously, but it is just her word and his word so all we have is an allegation. An allegation she says she does not want prosecuted and it cant be prosecuted anyway since the event happened when the statute of limitations was 5 years.--MONGO (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
What's your point in terms of Wikipedia guidelines? O3000 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh come on, MONGO, don't discredit her just because she took this long to talk about it. In the #MeToo era, we have plenty of similar examples. Also, you say you would know the date with precision. [2] Experts say that during trauma, the brain does select for salient details. [3] A psychologist says traumatic memories are not indelible. Researchers [4] say It is not reasonable to expect a trauma survivor ... to recall traumatic events the way they would recall their wedding day. starship.paint (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The accuser claims they still have the outfit they were wearing when this alleged incident occurred and it has not been laundered...so maybe the NYPD can shed some light onto this matter. Regardless, it seems implausible that they would have the wherewithal to be able to recite the event with such clarity, have retained the clothes unlaundered since said event yet can't remember within a 6-9 month time window as to when it happened.--MONGO (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
starship.paint, there's a fine line between Trump the man and Trump the president. He is most notable for being president. On the other hand, personal scandals could harm his re-election. Scjessey makes a good point: "it boggles the mind that we've come to this point." I suggest we wait and see if this latest story gains traction. I question by the way whether Trump lied about never meeting Carroll before. They were both photographed at an NBC party in 1987, but Carroll says she had never met Trump before the alleged encounter at Bergdorf Goodman a decade later. soibangla, you would have to discuss Bill Clinton in that article. The Broaddrick case has received more coverage than this case has. In time, this case may receive as much or more coverage, at which point we can re-visit the issue, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. TFD (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
"The Broaddrick case has received more coverage than this case has." - That's partly because this case is just one of a gazillion. When the fire hose is spraying you, the individual drops of water don't mean much. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: - these allegations are clearly about Trump the man. It's not business or politics or TV. Also, you said Carroll says she had never met Trump before the alleged encounter at Bergdorf Goodman a decade later. Source please? Carroll said the opposite in the Cut [5] (the original New York story): We’ve met once before, and perhaps it is the dusky light but he looks prettier than ever. starship.paint (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was basing my conclusion on the source used (BBC), which merely says Goodman "says she recognised him as the "real estate tycoon"", not that they had actually met. I hadn't read her article which says, "We’ve met once before." My point still stands that Trump may have forgotten meeting her at the NBC party over 30 years ago. And of course allegations of personal wrongdoing against politicians is political. Remember the Clinton impeachment? TFD (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: - please strike your inaccurate comment from before. Yes, Trump may have forgotten, but he didn't say: "I don't remember ever meeting this person", he said: "I've never met this person in my life". Yes, allegations of personal wrongdoing are political, but they are still more appropriate for this article over the presidency, since they occurred before this presidency. No, I don't remember the Clinton impeachment, I'm not American, and don't know many American things. starship.paint (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, I remember the Bill Clinton impeachment. The whole Lewinsky scandal was politicizes from Day One, and I mean Linda Tripp recording the conversation. This allegation does not appear to be political. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not saying the accusations were politically motivated. Clinton's impeachment related to Paula Jones, not Monica Lewinsky. starship.paint, by your standards, anyone who ever said they had not met someone would be lying, even if they had not met them. Whether or not he was lying, and not simply mistaken, is a matter of judgment, which requires reliable sources, not editors. Anyway, since you are unfamiliar, a number of "Bimbo eruptions" threatened Clinton's first campaign and ultimately his presidency as a number of women accused him of adultery and sexual assault. In the absence of any real ideological differences between the two parties, partisans tend to resort to personal attacks. TFD (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: (1) by your standards, anyone who ever said they had not met someone would be lying, even if they had not met them. - no...? You argued that he may have forgotten, when that wasn't his statement. I'm questioning your characterization, I'm not saying everyone must be lying. (2) partisans tend to resort to personal attacks - did Obama and George W. Bush have sexual misconduct allegations? Did Bush Sr. have any during his term? How about the presidents before? How many American presidents have sexual misconduct allegations arise during their term or candidacies? (3) Again, please strike Carroll says she had never met Trump before the alleged encounter at Bergdorf Goodman a decade later. You have acknowledged it is false. It violates WP:BLP. starship.paint (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
A total of 16 out of 45 U.S. presidents have faced sex scandals, including both Bushes, according to an article in Business Insider. There have also been a lot of high profile politicians brought down by them. By the way, I forgot to strike out my earlier text, but it is not a BLP violation. Anyway, we keep getting farther away from the issue. What goes into articles is solely determined by weight, which is established by mainstream news sources, not Wikipedia editors. And could you please stop quoting me. I am well aware of what I have written. TFD (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: - You might be aware, but I was more so quoting for others to follow the conversation. By referring to sex scandals in Business Insider, you've changed the argument. Here is the article: [6]. Out of the 15 prior presidents, 12 of their scandals were regarding adultery (5 of these had wedlock too). How many presidents, like Trump, were accused of sexual misconduct or rape before/during their term? Only Grover Cleveland, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, according to Business Insider. That's 4 out of 45, including Trump (less than 10%, compared to your above figure of more than 33% for sex scandals). Now, you refer to mainstream news sources. I provided international ones above. Do you need me to find American ones too? starship.paint (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
It does not matter whether you think this story is important but whether sources do, per weight. Articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, 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." TFD (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: - this is weird. You’re the one who brought up the Business Insider piece, in an apparent argument that sex scandals among presidents are common and thus not that important...? Then when I bring up few misconduct scandals among presidents, you argue personal views of importance don’t matter? So now you’re talking about sources. Have I not provided you 21 sources? Are they unreliable? Are they enough... do you need more? starship.paint (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I brought it up, if you remember, in reply to your questions, did Obama and George W. Bush have sexual misconduct allegations? Did Bush Sr. have any during his term? How about the presidents before? How many American presidents have sexual misconduct allegations arise during their term or candidacies? (03:30, 24 June 2019). I also mentioned that it is unimportant, what is important is how this case is treated in reliable sources, per weight. It doesn't matter whether you or I find something important, but whether reliable sources do. This article cannot be more negative nor more positive about the subject than what we find in mainstream media. How and why they make their decisions is not something we can second-guess. While you do not have to agree with me, it is pointless to continue to stress your points and ask me to repeat mine. TFD (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Yes, I do remember. You first decided to answer my questions which are related to 'personal view of importance', and then after you did, you decided 'personal view of importance' was irrelevant anyway. You keep talking about weight in reliable sources, again, I have to repeat because you are not addressing this: I have provided 21 sources from international media. Is that enough to establish weight? Do you want 21 sources from American mainstream media? I can find them, sure, but you don't seem to be replying on this point. starship.paint (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

No they are not, because Trump is in the news every single day. If anyone is speaking about this a week from now, then it might have weight. Advice columnist Alia E. Dastagir has a good article in USA Today explaining the lack of attention, "Writer E. Jean Carroll accuses Trump of rape. Why are we so reluctant to talk about it?" There's an article in Salon, "Trump accused of rape, major media yawns: Why was E. Jean Carroll's story not front page news? The evidence supporting a new rape allegation against Trump is strong, but most media barely covered the story". In Vox, "Why E. Jean Carroll’s assault accusation against Trump wasn’t front-page news The muted response says a lot about how the press covers Trump." In The Atlantic, "The Cruel Paradox at the Heart of E. Jean Carroll’s Allegation Against Trump The famous writer’s rape accusation against the president fell victim to the familiar workings of attention fatigue. TFD (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: - okay, let's wait a week from now. However, while it is true that Trump is in the news every day, that's usually POTUS Trump, historically also businessman Trump and TV Trump. This is Trump in his personal life, absolutely not in the news every day. starship.paint (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Please observe a 48-hour waiting period. Same-day edits just doesn't give any time for information or WEIGHT to appear. I tend to expect this will go into the other article as it doesn't seem to have more evidence than those or to have more impact than those, but let's come back to this in a couple days when we'd have more actual data rather than just my guessing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
oops, apologies, I missed that it was already past 48 hours. Actually, coverage notes how little prominence this is getting - AP “lands with a thud” opines about entrenched partisanship as the reason- confirmation view to one side isn’t noted and fake news view from the other, all see it as same-old. Media matters noted major papers just put other stuff on front page. There is definite presence, but seems not as much prominence as previous ones and much less than Hollywood access tapes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: - Carroll’s two friends have now been named and interviewed. The story wasn’t over in 48 hours. starship.paint (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint A 48 hour waiting period is for exactly the follow-ups that do not happen on the first day. The two friends adds another tidbit to coverage oddly noted by day 2 for it not getting coverage, e.g. Media Matters Major newspapers largely leave new report of sexual assault by Trump off their front pages, and AP Latest sex accusation against Trump lands with a thud, and this week for her odd interview and the attitude of it as a lark laughing about it or Rolling Stone Why E. Jean Carroll Won’t Call the Alleged Trump Assault ‘Rape’ her attitude is a bit out of step with #metoo. Think it's all reinforcing that the item should not get a specific mention here, and instead should get a section in the article of sexual misconduct allegations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump's metaphysical worldviews

This page is not a forum for expounding your personal views.. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The comment was about trump not the author. 2600:1702:2340:9470:C4A6:F997:9603:209F (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

False Statements

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

No, that's a news article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/trumps-escalating-war-on-the-truth-is-on-purpose - MrX 🖋
Characterize it as you may, the statement is clearly an opinion, and an inflammatory one at that. The sentence should be removed unless there is another, reliable, cite for this.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Adding "clearly" to your argument does not change the facts. The New Yorker article is a news article. The reporter stated a fact, that is not in serious dispute.[7][8][9][10][11]- MrX 🖋 13:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@MrX Calling an assertion like this from a well known liberal magazine a “fact” from a “news article” is transparently biased and ludicrous. This must be removed to lend some semblance of credibility to Wiki as an encyclopedia. How about: “Biden’s numerous changes of positions over the years on salient issues such as abortion for the sake of political expediency has become part of his political identify.”? To call such an assertion part of a “news article” brings to mind Benjamin Franklin’s admonition about names: “If you call an ox a bull he’d thank you for the compliment, but he would much rather have back that which was so wrongfully taken from him.”HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
HistoryBuff14, do you need clarification on how a clause like "for the sake of political expediency" violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR? And the New Yorker is a legitimate source. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
HistoryBuff14, feel free to cite reliable sources that state that Trump's lies are not a part of his political identity. I'll wait. I'll also wait for you to cite the Wikipedia policy that says that " well known liberal magazine[s]" are incapable of reporting facts.- MrX 🖋 16:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu&nbspYes, I do recognize such! That was the point of my hypothetical counterexample of the Trump description from a biased source. The New Yorker is a valid source, including quotes that are clearly opinion if noted as such as would be the hypothetical Biden example. Apparently, this eluded your comprehension. I call for a vote on removing this quote unless it is clearly cited as an opinion.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I haven't seen a near-continuous drumbeat of news coverage about Biden's waffling. Therein lies the difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
HistoryBuff14, I suppose that what has "eluded my comprehension" is how you can say "The New Yorker is a valid source" a sentence after calling it a "biased source". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Dear BullRangifer (talk): With all due respect, your comment (framing factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well) makes no sense. There is no such thing as a "factual opinion". A statement is either a fact, or it is an opinion. The two terms are mutually exclusive. Also - opinions are not part of "sum total of human knowledge". That is simply ridiculous. To characterize any opinion as fact, and include it as part of an article and part of the human knowledge base, poisons the well.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
JohnTopShelf, maybe that was clumsily-written, so here goes... We often use sources which are literally labeled "Opinion", and then some editor comes along who doesn't know the facts of the matter, and they claim that a fact stated in that opinion article is just the author's opinion.
It is such editors who create a problem by trying to force attribution of a fact because it was written in the author's opinion article. Those who know the facts will say there is no need for attribution of such a fact, while those who are ignorant of those facts will argue for attribution of it as an opinion.
Opinion statements nearly always include facts, and knowing the difference requires knowledge of those facts. In short, some opinions are indistinguishable from facts, hence such opinions are essentially stating facts. That may not make sense to you, but if you really want to get the point you will. If you wish to quibble, then you'll also do that. Whatever.
"Characterizing any opinion as fact" is not allowed here, and characterizing a fact as opinion is also wrong. Knowing the difference is wisdom. If enough RS state that such and such is the way it is, then we state it as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, even if a fringe minority disputes it. (We often note that view, giving it extremely minor weight.) Unfortunately, there are quite a few people who think Trump is honest, but those sources are so ignorant of the facts that their counter-factual opinions are discounted and generally ignored. We don't base our content on unreliable sources.
Opinions are very much a part of the "sum total of human knowledge". People know and are aware of facts, nonsense, lies, conspiracies, fringe nonsense, religious beliefs, etc. We are required to document all of this, as long as it's been documented in RS. If it doesn't even make it that far, then we don't.
Wikipedia would serve a very limited purpose if it only documented unarguable facts. It would also be boring as hell. Most RS document plenty of opinions and controversies. (Yes, controversies wouldn't be allowed here because they are often differences of opinion.) It would ignore most of what society discusses and what predicates many important events and wars. If you want to exclude use and documentation of opinions here, you'll have to change some policies. That is not done on this page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the sort of content that we include all the time, all over Wikipedia. It comes from one of the most reputable outlets out there. There's nothing "opinion" about it. R2 (bleep) 16:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This sort of content is indeed included in many Wikipedia articles, which is problematic. Including opinion, especially when characterized as fact, should never be allowed as it undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Claims about effects on Wikipedia's credibility are 100% subjective and unprovable, and really have no place in content discussions. Regardless, to any extent that compliance with Wikipedia policies and principles harms Wikipedia's credibility among people who don't know the first thing about those policies and principles, that is just a cross we have to bear as an encyclopedia. I think we'll survive. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia no doubt has zero credibility in the eyes of at least a third of the U.S. population because it says unfavorable things about Trump, completely consistent with policy (WP:PUBLICFIGURE among others). To these people, neutrality means your material about the subject is neither positive nor negative, and that's because they know nothing about our policies. To some, it can be positive and negative, but only in equal amounts (false balance). To some, even, we should say only positive things about Trump, because that's the "truth". And there are just as many Trump opponents who feel we should say only negative things because that's the "truth".
Should we modify our content to accommodate these groups and earn back their trust? Of course not. So credibility has nothing to do with it, does it? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

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

The point I was making, which was apparently lost in your attempt to sidestep it, is that you should limit your comments to policy questions and stop trying to hold Wikipedia's credibility hostage. Just leave that word out of it, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Take it out unless it can be sourced WIDELY.. It is making a rather broad and fundamental claim of personality, a psychology statement. Does not seem like the author is qualified, but let’s look first at if it is UNDUE and POV. If this broad and fundamental claim is an actual aspect, then it would logically be universally and frequently remarked on. That’s the logic of WP:PUBLICFIGURE anyway, although this is not about a single incident. If this is only expressed by the New Yorker author then it’s by that fact a fringe position. If it is only expressed by a few sources, it’s by that fact a minority opinion. If it’s only expressed by some left-wing sources, it’s by that fact a POV. So just see if this is also said in BBC and USAToday, then in Foxnews and Washington Examiner. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as blatantly biased opinion that makes a mockery of Wikipedia’s claim to be a serious electronic encyclopedic work. If a similar remark about a liberal public figure came from a conservative publication similar in tone to the The New Yorker, such as National Review, it would have been removed post-haste!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
    HistoryBuff14, nice attempt at a strawman argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
    @HistoryBuff14: Can you think of a single notable liberal politician with whom falsehoods are a distinctive part of their political identity? Trump's mendacity is his defining characteristic, and such a statement is backed up by all media, irrespective of whether it is liberal media or conservative media. If anything, this article has been extraordinarily generous to Trump in downplaying his unprecedented penchant for falsehood. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Scjessey Please see my first comment on this thread regarding a hypothetical dig at Biden by a detractor. I wasn’t talking about this exact reference, but one akin in spirit. BTW, once again thank your for your civility in accepting my apology after our unfortunate recent clash due to my misunderstanding your intent regarding a comment you had left. You are a gentleman, and it is appreciatedHistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I can think of a number of liberal politicians whose falsehoods are part of their political identity. Remember "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky?" That certainly defined Clinton. How about Obama's "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?" That was a whopper. How about "First of all, I didn’t set a red line". Or "Fast and Furious began under the Bush Administration (it began in 2009). All politicians lie - liberals and conservatives.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course other presidents lied. They just did not lie with the frequency, magnitude and repetition that Trump has. Fast & Furious was v2 of Operation Wide Receiver, which began in 2006. soibangla (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
JohnTopShelf, Obama didn't lie, he was wrong. Big difference. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Scjessey - can we 'think of one liberal politicians associated with falsehoods'!?! Well, during the campaign Hillary was the one said to be the compulsive liar. JohnTopShelf mentioned a couple large instances, but I could also note LBJ and JFK, and way back there is FDR... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: None of those politicians have falsehoods as "a distinctive part of their political identity". -- Scjessey (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Scjessey. ?!? Seriously, that’s as silly as saying there are no liberal politicians associated with falsehoods.... hope you don’t think you have an edit like either one. Look, I simply don’t see an edit here and what breadth of cites say that? If it’s only based on NewYorker it’s demonstrated FRINGE; if it’s only liberal media it’s demonstrated POV and possibly Propaganda; if it is also in BBC and CBS then it’s demonstrated as widely held; and if it gets commonly said in conservatives Foxnews et al it could be taken as general consensus said without caveats. But seriously, which part of Hillary being noted as ‘compulsive liar’ or ‘congenital liar’ did not sound like “a distinctive part of their political identity” ? For the others — their lies are explicitly noted bigger, longer repeated, and badder. (Of serious harm to individuals and the nation and a noted blot on their legacies and history.) Try reading out of non-liberal press, and you will find enough criticisms of them to accept that such comments at least exist widely for many Presidents. The counting in recent years is novel, but that ties to a “fact-check” form of opinion column that does counting being invented since the days of LBJ, not to politicians having been honest in days of yore. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett:, have you read the sources? Here's one quoted in the article: ... the entry of Donald Trump into the US political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented. This means however much Hilary Clinton (or any other politician) was a "compulsive liar", Donald Trump is worse. There's no point bringing up other politicians when the sources say Donald Trump is the biggest liar of all. starship.paint (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint That's not in the attempt to claim 'liberals don't lie' or 'well at least aren't part of their identity'. But as to this -- You got a lot that doesn't seem to be there -- read the cite (not in the article text) more closely and it says "lying in politics" which would have included Hillary -- and "in politics" could be read as not just folks like her and Pelosi and such politicians but to also include the other players -- advocacy groups, fake news, and simple coverage from Acosta or Limbaugh, MSNBC or Fox. Just her view there, but it's portraying the sociology or group dynamics rather than any claim that it's just Trump who does it all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: - you have proven that you haven’t read the article I cited. Maybe I should have linked to it. Here it is: [12]. If you had indeed read the article, instead of the quote, you would not have made your above argument. Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in US politics. starship.paint (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint Wrong again, I had read it and a couple of the links it has. I simply pointed out that your offered quote before did not occur in the article as you said, nor did that quote actually say what you claimed out of it, and also pointed out the Toronto Star had a different view in the link I followed from the article. Specifically from where she quotes his he's habitually erring. At [the] very least, it suggests a serial carelessness with the facts and a serial resistance to conceding error. The assertion or at least the phrasing chosen obviously differs from the phrasing being said -- even after stripping off the silly bits, so again the article phrasing seems either POV or semi-Common, though maybe FRINGE because it's just not a common way to phrase things. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: - you've never mentioned the Toronto Star in this section before. The only mention of Toronto Star on this talk page is you, virtually a month ago. es, McGranahan did quote the Toronto Star, but she also offered her own view, and succinctly, it is: his lies are off the charts. Also, what do you mean that my offered quote not appearing in the article? It's right there in the ABSTRACT It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the US political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented. Also, now you're starting to argue that the phrasing is uncommon so that article is maybe FRINGE? I'm gobsmacked. starship.paint (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint I mean the quote is not in the article text since that quote the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented. only shows if you scroll to the refs section or r-click the cite number so it's not in the article text normally visible or printed.
Again, the quoted phrase "lying in politics" is simply not the words "lying by Trump" nor "this means Trump is worse than Hillary" nor "Donald Trump is the biggest liar of all". You were projecting a lot of things into the line that were not explicitly stated in the quote that was shown, and would not pass WP:V if this was discussing an edit.
As to FRINGE -- again, the article phrasing seems either POV or semi-Common, though maybe FRINGE because it's just not a common way to phrase things. If it is being said by the one-third of media that's more liberal it is hence demonstrated WP:POV or WP:WEIGHT of a Minority view. But a phrasing that is notably "unusual" in the sense of 'not usually said' -- would make it a fraction of a fraction and that might be so few as to make it WP:FRINGE. People may find the more sensational and unusual of phrasings interesting -- but WP:FRINGE is WP:DUE little or no article text. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: (1) our Wikipedia says academics and the media have widely described the phenomenon [of Trump's frequent false statements] as unprecedented in American politics. (2) McGranahan says his [Trump's] lies are off the charts. No projection. (3) I have lost track of what phrasing you are even arguing about. What would be the common phrasing in this scenario? starship.paint (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint The #1 is reasonable -- but not the extremist statements in TALK of 'liberals don't lie' or any comparative like 'Trump is the biggest liar'. I wouldn't use McGranahan at all, just not prominent enough, but if we did use her line quoted saying "lying in politics" then that is a collective phrasing whcih does not WP:V support a claim "Trump is worse than Hillary". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Gosh, Markbassett, I said I was taking a break from editing. 'Liberals don't lie' is nonsense. 'Trump is the biggest liar' is not extremist. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in US politics. starship.paint (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint Maybe hard to believe, but 'Liberals don't lie' was what was being said, along with 'all media agrees - liberal and conservative'. And certainly there are other candidates for 'bigger' or 'worse' lying, such as in 'You can keep your healthcare' etcetera. In any case the wider commentary seems more to be about 'very frequently' or 'many times' and not 'worst' or 'biggest'. Finally - there's nothing more extreme than "worst", and it's hard to V that language. A simple adjective like 'prolific' is easier to V than a comparative "worse than Hillary", and an absolute and maximum claim like "worst ever" is an exceptional mark. One remote sociologist casual remark just isn't going to do at least, especially if it is having to interpret what she meant and not using exactly what was written. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: I don't even know how to respond to your ludicrous comment, except to echo Starship.paint's note about Trump being demonstrably the most prolific liar in political history, with the scope of his mendacity documented in exhaustive detail by a number of respectable media outlets. There's just nothing whatsoever to support your arguments, unless your source is exclusively Sean Hannity, or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Scjessey Glad to see you've gotten more realistic than saying the Trump claim is "backed up by all media, irrespective of whether it is liberal media or conservative media" into just ones you view as respectable, and away from him telling the 'biggest' or 'worst' ones to a plausible 'most prolific'. So go ahead and do that 'demonstrably' for WP:V and to clarify which of my categories it fits to. If it is few to none in the conservative third of coverage support this, or little to none in the middle third, or whether 'just the NewYorker and a couple others' use the edit phrasing. It seems an odd phrasing, so it seems unlikely that all others in any third would follow suit, and it's the breadth of this that any edits should convey. My impression is that the few fact-checker opinion sources portray it sometimes as a herd of trivial inaccuracies showing a systemic distain for accuracy, as one contrasting view. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct allegations in lead suggestion

My suggested addition to the lead:

Trump has been accused of rape, sexual assault, groping, non-consensual kissing, and other forms of sexual misconduct by at least 22 women before and during his presidency. He has denied all allegations.

Thoughts? This seems like a good compromise lead. It's independently notable, received a significant amount of media attention, and has shown long-term notability. MarvellingLiked (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. All are unproven allegations. Atsme Talk 📧 20:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy says we should do it, so "absolutely" yes. That is a textbook example of how it's done properly, including the denial (which was my addition to the policy). Proven, unproven, true or false are all irrelevant in this situation because that is not "unsourced negative" content, so BLP tells us, in detail, how to handle it. NPOV does not allow censorship or whitewashing, especially for Trump. Unlike private persons, BLP offers less protection for such notable people. This is also a very notable part of his reputation.
Follow the policies (WP:LEAD also applies) that require we say something to that effect in the lead, and, because it's got its own section here and full article, it should be mentioned in the lead. All that's missing in that statement is some references, but they are found in the section and in the linked article, so it's good as is. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not in the lead. This material is well covered in the body of the text, but there is so much stuff in this enormous article that not every subsection can go in the lead. We have to be choosy. In this case, I think we need to favor his actual, documented actions (like lying) over widely-reported but entirely unproven accusations. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not in the lead. The lead in a BLP is a summary of a person's life. Allegations of sexual misconduct which have either been debunked, remain unproven, etc. do not belong in the lead of person's biography - it doesn't matter who that person is, unless of course, it was that behavior that made them notable. Atsme Talk 📧 20:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
We don't need a criminal conviction in order to include it in the lead. It's independently notable, received a significant amount of media attention, and has shown long-term notability.MarvellingLiked (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sigh. If this were any other person on the planet, it would absolutely be in the lead, but I must agree with MelanieN and (partly) Atsme. I disagree with Atsme's rationale, however. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that the lead is *that* crowded right now, so I don't see how a brief mention would negatively affect the article. If it was a rambling diatribe about a half dozen allegations of sexual assaults, sure, but I think the allegations have met the criteria for inclusion.MarvellingLiked (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
There was an RfC on this previously. The allegations have had had basically no effect on his life so they do not belong in the lede, which exists to summarize only the most salient details about the subject. You can read the discussions linked above at #Highlighted open discussions.LM2000 (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
In summarising this, we should characterise it as "non-consensual sexual activity" rather than "sexual misconduct" or the range of particular accusations. I would recommend Trump has been accused of various non-consensual sexual acts by several women, which he has denied. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Not an improvement. Still not in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I still think it should be in the lead. It's not too long and NPOV, WP:LEAD ("including any prominent controversies"), and PUBLICFIGURE are policies which would require it. None of the arguments against inclusion are impressive in the least. On the contrary, they actually include statements which back up the need to add this to the lead:

  • Atsme's arguments are totally non-policy based and contrary to PUBLICFIGURE, NPOV, and LEAD, so don't count at all. Trump's sexual adventures and misconduct are actually part of what makes him so famous and controversial ("that behavior that made them notable"). Even more so because of the fact that his power and team of lawyers help him get away with all kinds of outrageous and controversial behavior. We should not bow to that thinking or pressure. PUBLICFIGURE exists to NOT let people like him get away with it here.
  • MelanieN's statements actually support inclusion in the lead: "This material is well covered in the body of the text..." ergo, that's exactly why we must include it in the lead. Anything "well covered in the body", especially when it has its own section and full article, deserves short mention. The length of the lead is not a problem as this is indeed very short.
  • Scjessey: "If this were any other person on the planet, it would absolutely be in the lead,..." In fact, because of his notability the bar for inclusion is even lower; WP:PUBLICFIGURE offers much less protection than WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Wikipedia's default TRUMP EXEMPTION practice really needs to stop.

We should include this short mention in the lead. (See also: How to create and manage a good lead section.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • You are twisting my comments and Scjessey's. Yes, if this were any other person on the planet this material might be included. But Trump is not any other person; he is almost unique. Even before he became president was so notable for so many things that his article was longer than that of many presidents. Since becoming president he is the subject of widely reported new material virtually every day, world wide. You claim that "Anything "well covered in the body", especially when it has its own section and full article, deserves short mention." That can't be applied to him. This article has 35 large sections, not counting subsections, and there are 150+ articles about him. There is simply no way to include all that in the lead. We have to pick and choose. And unproven allegations - especially allegations that seem to have had no effect on the course of his life - do not make the cut. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I obviously disagree and see this as yet another application of the de facto TRUMP EXEMPTION policy here where he gets the kid glove treatment, in contrast to how we apply our policies to EVERYONE else. We constantly whitewash and protect him, RS coverage be damned. We must stop acting like an extension of Fox News. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Include but rape, groping, and non-consensual kissing are all forms of sexual assault. We don't want to perpetuate the myth that behaviors like groping aren't crimes. The language should be shortened even further to: Trump has been accused of sexual assault and misconduct by at least 22 women before and during his presidency. He has denied all allegations. R2 (bleep) 19:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I can support that. It does not diminish the allegations in any way and at the same time stays relatively neutral. Mgasparin (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not include. I am not familiar enough with this article at the moment, but I know that "news of the decade" is a prerequisite for including something in the Trump lead. The Guardian basically says this is WP:UNDUE because it does not even have enough media coverage, let alone long-term significance. Prior to this sink of coverage I would probably support inclusion of allegations, though I much more support including the Access Hollywood tape and the Russia investigation to the lead, with the former dominating every day coverage before the election and the latter dominating the coverage every day after the election. I think I understand the motivation to make a false accusation, but the fact there is a photo of them is both convincing evidence and a borderline BLP violation. "Guilt by association" photos are the worst smears in politics and I usually remove them when a person denies knowing the other person. wumbolo ^^^ 22:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Wumbolo: - the photo doesn’t prove Trump raped anyone. It just proved he didn’t tell the truth in his statement of never meeting Carroll before. Trump’s done similar things before. When George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty of a crime, Trump said [13] “Few people knew the young, low level volunteer”, when previously Trump had personally called him an “excellent guy”, and there was a picture of them together as part of his “national security team”. Steve Bannon, 2016 Trump campaign CEO and White House chief strategist, suddenly was described as a “staffer” and “was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books”. starship.paint (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Include, with R2's language, shortened more to make crystal clear that he is not accused of misconduct while president: Trump has been publicly accused of sexual assault and misconduct by at least 22 women soibangla (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Include either top version or R2’s version corrected by Soibangla. One allegation alone might not be important enough, but the coverage by the 22 allegations combined will meet the requirement in my view. starship.paint (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it would be wise to follow Ahrtoodeetoo's suggestion, regardless of its good intentions. Sexual assault is a different crime to rape, but they are both sex crimes. Making a distinction between sexual assault and rape certainly doesn't imply that rape isn't a criminal offence. Sexual misconduct is something that we should avoid saying as it is very ill-defined. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Include one of those versions. They are both good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not include - Nothing major has occurred since consensus by RFC to not put in lead, "there are a significant majority of editors here who believe the allegations are not that significant." see Archive 73, consensus #6, recent archive 96 discussion. The language here also adds a bit of an issue -- most RS do not provide counts let alone allude by "at least" to there being more, and all of these are from before the presidency so "before and during his presidency" is misleading. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not include in the lead per MelanieN's argument - this article has 35 large sections ("not counting subsections"). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not include Again, there was a previous RfC on this and unless we have another one that ends with a stronger consensus in the other direction then we're not going to change anything. There was a similar RfC concerning Woody Allen's lede a few months ago that also decided not to include an allegation against him. The cases are similar in that most of the media coverage of their allegations are followed by questions about why the allegations didn't damage their respective careers. If the allegations aren't having a palpable effect then this isn't the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The allegations are serious and deserve coverage with due weight but the WP:LEAD serves only to give a brief summary on why they're notable. Unlike the likes of Harvey Weinstein or Roger Ailes, whose careers were effectively ended by allegations, a brief summary of Trump can be told without including them.LM2000 (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not include (but no real objection) - Nothing major has occurred since consensus by RFC to not put in lead - It is this argument from Markbassett that is most compelling for me. Once we get to a point where almost two dozen accusations aren't enough to win a consensus for inclusion in the lead, it's never going to happen. Even if 30 more women came forward with accusations, it still wouldn't be enough. It's important for the body of the article to explore these accusations in the detail they deserve, but the lead should be reserved only for the aspects of Trump's life that are biographically significant. It's appalling to me that these allegations have not really been taken seriously, as they have been with other predators highlighted in the #MeToo era, but Trump has completely escaped consequences thus far and so there's nothing worthy of the lead. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Scjessey, you seem to be buckling under to this odd rule made for Trump that RS coverage is no longer the rule at Wikipedia, but that some elastic rule about "impact" on a life now trumps it. That means that lesser known and less powerful individuals will have their allegations for single misdeeds mentioned in the lead, while the most known and most powerful, because they have become teflon, are treated with deference and their myriad misdeeds, which have received enormous RS coverage, are protected, even when we have the BLP WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy which requires that we not do that. It describes how RS coverage of even unproven allegations is supposed to trump all else in this situation. We really have become an extension of Fox News. This is a sad day when our most important policies don't apply to Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Scjessey, your edit summary said: "This feels wrong, but the lead MUST be reserved for things that actually effect Trump's life.". It feels wrong because it is wrong. It substitutes editorial feelings over RS coverage and article content. Just because this subject, which is large enough for a whole article, now gets a small section coverage here, does not make it a small subject. It still carries the full weight of the whole Sexual allegations article. That is the real weight of this subject, and that real weight determines whether it should be mentioned in the lead or not. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The Washington Post Editorial Board writes that "America must listen to E. Jean Carroll. It's clear Trump won't."[1]
  1. ^ Editorial Board (June 25, 2019). "America must listen to E. Jean Carroll. It's clear Trump won't". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 26, 2019.
"As a matter of principle, everyone deserves a presumption of innocence. But in Mr. Trump’s case, that has to be tempered by what we know. We know that Mr. Trump routinely traffics in falsehoods. We know that he has shown contempt for the law in many contexts. And we know that Mr. Trump has boasted about assaulting women.... “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”
"Just as we cannot ignore the disdain for the truth and the law that defines this administration simply because we have grown to expect it, we cannot ignore an allegation of sexual assault against the president simply because others have come before it. The United States still has to function with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office, but greeting the grossest abuses as routine veers too close to treating them as acceptable. At the least, the country must do for Ms. Carroll what the president will not: Listen to her."
It appears that Wikipedia won't listen to her either. Wikipedia has chosen Trump's side of the matter by using an elastic and very subjective idea, not by respective the massive RS coverage over the years. The RS are not dropping the ball and ignoring her, but we are ignoring their massive coverage of this whole topic of his sexual controversies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @BullRangifer: I'm not "buckling" or making up any new rule. Reliable sources are such that inclusion in the article is absolutely warranted and necessary. But that does not, in my opinion, extend to the lead, which is already longer than it really should be. While the lead is meant to fairly summarize the body of the article that follows it, there's no way we can summarize so many sections. Cuts must be made, so I think not having something which has (thus far) had no effect on Trump's life is reasonable. Obviously that may change, but there's certainly nothing to suggest enough has changed since the last RfC to overturn the existing consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You sadly seem to be right about no change to wikipedian's opinions since the RfC, a result which ignored policy. We still ignore policy and protect Trump, RS be damned, and my opinion isn't swaying anyone, so I'll back off. I still think we are ignoring policy and acting like Fox News. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I find it disgusting that this issue is left out of the lead, because it feels like we are ignoring the poor women Trump has allegedly assaulted; however, the article is specifically about Trump and what we know about him, and there's currently nothing to say he's been impacted by any of these allegations. It sucks, but there it is. Incidentally, I removed the bullets deliberately. Your restoration makes the thread look like a mess. I don't really care, so I'm not going to mess with it again. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Include This is not a single instance but many that span decades. There are multiply references for these and seem to be a major part of his history now. ContentEditman (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not include In interviews the accuser is already reciting different scenarios. In one she claims he pinned her against a wall and in another he pushed her to the ground. I reiterate that accusations of such offenses should not be taken lightly but I find her claims to be uncompelling based on the inability to recollect with more precision the time this happened as well as the flippant alterations to her storyline.--MONGO (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you should avoid posting your personal opinions about the validity of statements by a living person in a rape accusation. O3000 (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
That's cute. Never mind that Trump, last I checked is also a living person and he has denied this and all other allegations of a similar note. And did she say Rape, as last I saw she said she said some might call it sexy....just on CNN...and Anderson Cooper tried to go to an immediate commercial break during the interview.--MONGO (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
For the sake of accuracy — Cooper: "I think most people think of rape as a violent assault, it is not a sex act." Carroll: "I think most people think of rape as being sexy." She stated a subjective opinion about society, nothing to do with how she thinks of rape. This is relevant to this discussion how? FYI, and that of a few minor news outlets that have seized on this as something worthy of reporting, a show's director decides when to go to break, not the host. That's what the host's earpiece is for. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources says Cooper quickly went to commercial...it did not say the shows director did.[14].--MONGO (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
One must be careful in calling RCP a reliable source. For polls, videos and transcripts? Sure. But an article that characterizes Cooper as "stunned" when there is no evidence he was? I think not. soibangla (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Mongo, you are making accusations about a living person, ridiculing her claims of rape based on your own opinions and an out of context comment suggesting she thinks rape is sexy with a weird claim about Anderson Cooper. I suggest you strike these claims. O3000 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
She is making unsubstantiated accusations about a living person. Did Trump die or something? I must have missed that.--MONGO (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
And we say they are allegations. But, you are making claims about this woman that are without evidence or contrary to evidence. You are ridiculing a possible rape victim for no reason that I can see. These are BLP violations. O3000 (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Some might say that putting unsubstantiated claims, even if categorically calling them allegations, in an article such as this is a BLP violation.--MONGO (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
And some would be wrong, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, part of BLP. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." I don't see the word "substantiated" in that. This has been pointed out to you more times than I can count, and you need to stop inventing your own policies if you wish to continue editing in the AP2 topic area. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Mandruss you can cease your bullying tactics and threats. I am well aware of BLP and other polices... I've been editing this website since 2004. Just because something flares up in the news a few days doesn't mean it should go in this article and sure doesn't mean it should go in the lead section. The latest accuser claims they still have the outfit they wore when the alleged incident happened and they also claim it was not laundered...so should proof of said incident be available after a forensic examination of said attire and it shows Trump DNA then not only in the lead but I'll join the rest of the chorus screeching for impeachment. But all we have now is a flare up in the media, which will probably abate sooner than later. It therefore is not lead worthy...and mentioning numbers of claimants in the lead isnt either.--MONGO (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
We're not discussing whether Carroll's accusation should be in the lead. We're discussing whether the substantial number of accusations across decades from women with no known connections has now reached a threshold to justify inclusion in the lead. soibangla (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
And I said no to that, or was this not clear?--MONGO (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The bulk of your edit related specifically to Carroll, which appears to be your consistent argument. soibangla (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
You can argue that it isn't lead-worthy per WEIGHT or other considerations, but not that "some might say" it would be a BLP violation to include it in the lead, which is what you said above. Such an argument unambiguously conflicts with policy, and WP:BLP doesn't even mention articles' leads. Thus you continue to invent policy, and that is disruptive to the consensus process.
You continue to talk about the Carroll case as if it has some relevance to this proposal or this discussion. It does not, as pointed out to you six hours ago, here. We could have started the same discussion before the Carroll allegation came out; there isn't even any particular evidence that the Carroll allegation had anything to do with the timing of the proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
If anyone is inventing policy its you. Since when did BLP not apply to the leads? Where the heck did you get that notion? BLP applies everywhere, even here. BLP demands we edit "conservatively" and not be a "tabloid". No evidence this latest proposal isn't due to the latest allegation? Right, okie dokie.--MONGO (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The article has had for a long time an entire subsection devoted to the subject matter that is proposed to be summarized in the lead. The point you are trying so hard to miss is that BLP does not distinguish between body and lead. If it's BLP-compliant in the body, it's BLP-compliant in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
You lost me with your comment, "Such an argument unambiguously conflicts with policy, and WP:BLP doesn't even mention articles' leads." indicating you completely misunderstand the policy. It is apparent I am wasting my time here.--MONGO (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a straw man. The proposal doesn't pass judgment on the allegations, nor does it even mention E. Jean Carroll's accusation. This proposal is about the 22 accusations and their cumulative significance, regardless of whether they're true or false. R2 (bleep) 16:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
And none of them are substantiated. They are all just allegations.--MONGO (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
MONGO, "substantiated", "allegation", as well as true, false, proven, unproven are all irrelevant here. BLP is very clear how we are supposed to deal with unsubstantiated allegations, even the worst forms of libel, and that is described in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We are supposed to include them when the conditions are fulfilled, and they certainly are here. Allegations of Trump's sexual misdeeds are more than abundantly documented and are fair game for inclusion.
The only question here is whether to include a microscopic mention in the lead, but because it's Trump, not even that will happen. Our policies do not apply to him. He's teflon here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Somebody provided some degree of substantiation: "I just start kissing them ... I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything ... grab 'em by the pussy." starship.paint (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. He bragged about doing it and they confirmed that he wasn't lying, except that not all "let him do it." Many didn't like it and made allegations, but some still don't believe Trump and think the women are lying. Actually, they are just two sides of the same story: He said "I did it" and they reply "Yes, he did.". -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
He's a documented habitual liar, particularly about himself, and we can't single out that one instance and say it was the one time he told the truth. What we can say is that it demonstrated low moral character—no, Virginia, it is not normal for mature 59-year-old men to engage in that kind of "locker room talk"—which is consistent with the alleged conduct and adds a bit of credibility to the allegations. Perhaps this is a distinction without a significant difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
She actually said "I was not thrown on the ground" soibangla (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
MONGO per the above, please strike your statement on different stories, or provide a reliable source. We don’t know what you have been reading. starship.paint (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Scjessey, I do not think your comment of "he hasn't been impacted by this, therefore we can't include it" is consistent with community standards or encyclopedic practice. There are all sorts of things that have no "impact" on a BLP's life, but that are still highly significant and make it into their lead sections. People become famous (or infamous) after their death for all sorts of things, and we don't exclude that content from their lead sections because it had no impact on them. It's a fair point that Trump himself hasn't been impacted in a practical way, but do you believe that his legacy hasn't been impacted? Do you think when people look back at Trump in ten years' time the sexual assault allegations won't even be on the radar? R2 (bleep) 17:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, bear in mind that the largest single-day protest in U.S. history was primarily a reaction to Trump's statements that he had sexually assaulted multiple women. That seems like impact. R2 (bleep) 18:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Nope, according to the 2017 Women’s March#Policy platform they were out there for liberal causes. LGBT, Climate change, Health care, race, border walls, etcetera. I don’t doubt many also have negative feelings re allegations of sexual misconduct helping things along as a major factor, but “primarily a reaction” to those allegations is a bit of a reach. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ahrtoodeetoo: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I agree Trump has been impacted by these allegations, but I do not think he has been impacted enough to warrant "promoting" the matter to the lead. I don't really have any objection to it being promoted, but I think that given the length of the lead already, this is one of the things that doesn't have to be in it. Trump will be in much greater legal jeopardy in January 2021 when he leaves the White House, and these allegations may well come back to haunt him. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Sources

  • RichardWeiss, we have both been here since at least 2003, and you should know that your view is directly opposite of BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy. Read it. We are required to include even the worst forms of libel and absolutely false allegations if several RS have written about the matter. We are supposed to do it. We are not talking about private persons. BLP has a different policy for them. They get spared. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I've been here since 2004 but that's another issue (and a mistake!). However, while I agree with your basic assertion, this is NOT a justification for including this allegation in the lede. I am not opposing its inclusion in the article but very strongly opposing its inclusion in the lede, until or unless he is convicted. An allegation isn't notable enough for the lede. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, but open to persuasion. The lead has limited space and this subject is very diverse. If we summarize every aspect of the subject, I think readers will find it to be disjointed and confusing. At this point, these allegations, while deeply troubling, have not developed to the point where they are significant enough to include in the lead next to Trump's lying, racial views, bungled policies, and career as a reality TV star.- MrX 🖋 23:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Include. I disagree with the assertion that WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires this to be in the lead—or even strongly suggests that. It merely requires it to be in the article, and it already is. The only place PUBLICFIGURE has in this discussion is to refute claims of BLP violation.
    I also disagree that the unproven nature of the allegations has anything to do with this decision. This kind of conduct is notoriously hard to prove, being as it usually happens in private, and it gets worse when the alleged behavior is years or decades old. We're not talking about one or two allegations but the combined weight of 22 of them. How many men's presidential hopes have been ruined forever because of one unproven allegation of less serious conduct? See Gary Hart, the presumptive nominee, knocked out of the race when it was alleged that he was in a [gasp!] extramarital affair with Donna Rice, said affair plausibly denied by both Hart and Rice to this day AFAIK. That's in his lead, by the way. And this is not lead-worthy?
    The notion that 22 women invented or exaggerated, choosing to subject themselves to what they knew would be a vicious and hateful retaliatory response, merely for political purposes, bends fair-minded reason to the breaking point.
    I agree that We have to be choosy, and I choose this. For an article of this size, covering a very long and high-profile life, the lead can handle another 32 words. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a clarification. I don't think I have claimed that PUBLICFIGURE requires mention in the lead, just mention. I have brought it up to rebut mistaken notions that unproven allegations should not be mentioned at all. That's not true. As I wrote above, the only question here is whether to include a microscopic mention in the lead, but because it's Trump, not even that will happen. Our policies do not apply to him. He's teflon here. Our kid glove treatment of Trump violates a whole lot of policies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

*Do not include This is an encyclopedia not a gossip column. TFD (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  • If you're arguing that encyclopedias (unlike gossip columns) don't have sexual assault allegations in articles on humans, the sexual assault allegations have already been in this article's body for years. If you're arguing that the content shouldn't be in the lede so it wouldn't resemble a gossip column, I don't think gossip columns have ledes like Wikpedia. starship.paint (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    Comment: I think that here is not discussing whether the misconduct allegations are true; rather, it is whether the allegations themselves had significantly damaged Mr. Trump's public image. While I will not cast my vote here and I do think the lead should not focus only on his public image, especially without mentioning any other important biographical information such as what he did as POTUS, including the allegations in the lead as one of the damaging factors of his image may very well be appropriate, and it certainly is appropriate given the ubiquitous reporting to tell readers the one thing that ruins his reputation: his mouth—a shame for a leader who is otherwise doing okay or mediocre. Gamingforfun365 06:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Include the shorter version suggested by R2. Of course we need to mention the sexual abuse issue in the lead, and I'm astonished that we don't. This is one of the Trump-related issues that has received the most coverage, and the coverage of this spans decades and has been constant during his presidency. It was the dominating issue during his campaign/the election, there is enormous debate and attention surrounding this issue, and it certainly has a large impact on the public image of Trump and his presidency. It belongs in the lead per WP:LEAD. Note that an issue that has its own section in this very article in addition to no less than two detailed (sub) articles is almost by definition worthy of being mentioned in the lead, so the discussion should really focus on wording rather than the obvious fact that the issue needs to be mentioned in some way. --Tataral (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not include It might be acceptable if the tone of writing were different. But it begins "Trump has been accused of rape...." In fact that specific allegation has received little coverage relatively. Also, I prefer not to use the passive tense. So "22 women have accused Trump" is better phrasing in my opinion. TFD (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Psst, TFD - you repeated the "do not include" below, too. Atsme Talk 📧 03:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, it was inadvertent and I have now struck out my first vote. TFD (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
TFD, what tone/language would you support? Is it just the passive vs. active voice, i.e., would your !vote change if it started with "22 women have accused Trump"? R2 (bleep) 21:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer wording such as, "At least 22 women have accused Trump of sexual assault or other sexual misconduct. He has denied all allegations and none have been proved in court." The fact the accusations have been made is significant, but we have no way of knowing whether they are true or not. I think also the term rape should be omitted because it gives the impression that more than one person has made the accusation. So yes, I would change my vote. TFD (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Where did the figure of 22 allegations come from? Just today, WaPo says 16, WaPo June 25 2019, again 16; ABC dated June 25, 2019 says at least 17; Vox June 27, 2019 says 16. Atsme Talk 📧 03:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Libby Nelson and Laura McGann writing in Vox (June 21, 2019), "E. Jean Carroll joins at least 21 other women in publicly accusing Trump of sexual assault or misconduct" They provide a list. TFD (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thx, TFD. The more recent Vox article I linked to above states: The actions she describes in her account amount to the closest thing to a rape allegation from any of 16 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct over the years. Interestingly, CNN states their list has been verified and updated, and there's 15 total, one of whom is anonymous. Atsme Talk 📧 03:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Include something along the lines of R2's proposal (I think before and during his presidency is not necessary). This is something that was first an issue in 1989 (with the Ivana rape accusation), was a very major campaign issue and has been a recurring subject of coverage during his Presidency as new allegations are made. I don't think even a very summarized biography of Trump can leave out these allegations and be complete, and there certainly is space to include them (compare the length of this lead to that of Barack Obama for example); just because there are a lot of things that we could include doesn't mean that things become unimportant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Antifa

You are invited to participate in Talk:Antifa (United States)#RfC: antifa and terrorism, a discussion about whether to include that activities by American anti-fascists were labeled as domestic terrorism by the Trump administration. R2 (bleep) 22:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing behavior

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.

I'm seeing a ton of edits to the article that are being described as "copyedits" (and similar) when, in fact, they are substantially altering it. Please stop doing this, because it leads to edit warring. If you want to make any kind of edit that may change the meaning of a sentence or section, please propose it on this talk page before doing it. Assume everything you do is likely to be challenged. It's unfortunate this is necessary, but it's where we are now. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I only found one recent instance of this, by Onetwothreeip. I left a note on their talk page about it. R2 (bleep) 17:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Look harder. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I think this may be another instance you were thinking of. R2 (bleep) 19:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
That was me attempting to improve upon 123IP's changes. If there's anything you see that could be further improved, please edit away. — JFG talk 20:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

North Korea

Days after the summit, satellite imagery showed reconstruction of the Sohae ICBM launch site, which previous was thought be in the process of dismantling.[1][2] Some analysts stated that the renewed activity was designed to pressure Washington back to the negotiating table.[3]

Sources

This is purely speculative. There is no evidence that anything significant is happening. In an article of this scope three sentences on this issue seem unwarranted.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I can understand why it was added, but I think it is only tangentially related to Trump and can be safely removed. This latest addition to the section seems worthy of note, however. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe I added this and I think it should remain unless we also remove the second sentence of the second paragraph, which is every bit as speculative, lacking in evidence of happening, and out of scope. - MrX 🖋 13:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The sentence you refer to describes what was pledged at the summit. That is purely factual. In contrast, we don't know what is happening at the launch site. So far there is no sign of ICBMs being launched. If ICBMs are launched, I would support mentioning that in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
It's inconsistent with #Current consensus #37 and should be removed, along with any other content that is deemed to require it. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
We don't know that for certain. The Australian source said according to "U.S. analysts" and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. These are the same sort of sources that mistook a drug factory for a nerve gas factory operated by al Qaeda, found WMD plants in Iraq and massive sophisticated caves carved out of the mountains of Afghanistan. TFD (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
According to this, its a space launch site, that has never been used for ICBMs. I can't find any current information on the issue. It seems to have died away.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This doesn’t seem like BLP material. Markbassett (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Put it in..it`s relevant.2600:1702:2340:9470:74B8:581:10A1:5F2E (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed it as there is clear consensus against it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
+1 more to remove for the record - thank you, Jack Upland. --Day late — $ short 19:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Entering North Korea

I think we should consider adding Trump's entry into North Korea to the lead. It's a pretty historic event. - MrX 🖋 16:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

We should wait and see how this develops. Too soon for the lead right now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Why, do you think he's going to take 20 more steps? This has literally never happened before.- MrX 🖋 16:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Summit? G20 Summit - check; Moon-Trump summit - meh (Reuters seems to be the only source to have called the meeting in Seoul a summit in a 4-sentence news brief picked up by the NY Times). As far as I can tell, not a single source called the Trump-Kim meeting in the DMZ sandbox or the one-hour, behind-closed-doors, one-on-one talk a summit. For all we know, they were discussing Rodman. Also, the article on the "DMZ summit" seems to have been copied extensively from a few CNN articles - haven't had the time to compare at length but saw quite a few matches. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
One short sentence in the paragraph about North Korea would keep things timely. — JFG talk 09:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
A short sentence would be appropriate, as it is a notable historical event. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 Done (not in lead) — JFG talk 12:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Accelerating nuclear program

However, North Korea accelerated their missile and nuclear tests leading to increased tension.[1]

Sources

  1. ^ Kennedy, Merrit (April 17, 2017). "Pence Tells North Korea: 'The Era Of Strategic Patience Is Over'". NPR. Retrieved April 19, 2017.

The source does not say that North Korea accelerated their nuclear weapons program, but rather indicates that by 2017 it had become a direct threat to the USA. The North Korea and weapons of mass destruction article indicates that North Korea's progress has been steady since their first nuclear test in 2006. The source also suggests that Trump was deliberately increasing tension as a negotiating tactic. I think it would be better to document what happened, rather than try to interpret it. In any case, any text should reflect the source, not an editor's opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. North Korea had made steady progress both on nuclear technology and on missile/satellite delivery. By 2017 they were demonstrating their achievements in a threatening way, notably by firing ballistic missiles over Japan and towards Guam. — JFG talk 02:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I have removed this sentence. The text as it now stands mentions North Korea developing ICBMs and the supposed threat to Guam. This is factual and makes the necessary point. It also aids the aim of shortening the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately the text has now be altered to suggest that North Korea did not develop ICBMs. This just seems to me to be wishful thinking. Rex Tillerson confirmed that they had.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
This is off-topic for his BLP (thx again for removing, Jack). It belongs in North Korea and possibly include some mention in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. Atsme Talk 📧 19:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

"surprise victory"

I propose that in the lede sentence "He was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, although he lost the popular vote," the word "surprise" be changed to "upset." The word "surprise" is subjective and potentially inaccurate (for example, many diehard Trump supporters were not 'surprised' by his victory), while "upset" is more objective and better represents the fact that most polls prior to the election had Clinton as the winner. Vrrajkum (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree. It was a surprise to Clinton supporters, but it basically followed the template started in the 2000 election. Both parties were fairly evenly divided and the result hinged on turnout. TFD (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Trump tells Wisconsin: Victory was a surprise “So I go and see my wife. I say, ‘Baby, I’ll tell you what, we’re not gonna win tonight...So now the polls just closed, and they start announcing numbers,” Trump said. “And I say, ‘Oh, this is gonna be embarrassing.’" soibangla (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Soibangla: So the victory was a surprise to Trump; that doesn't mean that a third-party, encyclopedic reference like Wikipedia should characterize the victory itself as a surprise in such unambiguous terms. Vrrajkum (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I am refuting the statement "It was a surprise to Clinton supporters," when it was also a surprise to Trump himself. And "it basically followed the template started in the 2000 election" ignores a certain two-term president in the interim. soibangla (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Upset implies an overwhelming victory which it was not.2600:1702:2340:9470:39FE:F463:C771:A7BB (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Note:this user has made few to no edits to other pages.
It was an upset victory. Almost no mainstream media outlets were predicting his victory, yet here we are. Upset victories do not have to be landslides, they just have to be very unexpected. Mgasparin (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla:, I don't think you are reading the Politico article correctly. Trump thought he would win until the exit polls came out at 5 o'clock, which surprised him since he had received large crowds at his rallies. "Trump recalled asking what the problem was and conceded that he “really assumed I lost” because, despite his constant rant against “phony” polls, he thought they [the exit polls] had some credibility." On the other hand, what Trump says depends more on what he wants to convey at the moment than what actually happened. TFD (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The point is that even at the 11th hour, everyone thought he would lose, including him. A startling admission, actually. soibangla (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep “Surprise victory” ... nothing here to motivate shift in a long-standing phrasing, previously discussed in archives 5, 31, 43, 60, 65, 83, 85, 98 .... Stated in 85 from how an overwhelming majority of reporting covered it, and the mildest phrasing per PEACOCK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Keep it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree.--2600:1702:2340:9470:B1FE:4C4D:DEFC:E186 (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Yup. Keep existing "surprise" wording, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Surprise is what most sources said, and we follow the sources, not our own opinions. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer something like unanticipated or unexpected rather than upset. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

That would be better.2600:1702:2340:9470:B1FE:4C4D:DEFC:E186 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Should we simply call Trump a dark horse candidate?: "a contestant that on paper should be unlikely to succeed but yet still might.[1]" Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Dark horse". Merriam Webster.
Perhaps we could call him the orange stallion?--Jack Upland (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Not seen much mention of a "dark horse" in contemporary sources about Trump's candidacy; "orange clown" was a more widespread description indeed.[FBDB] — JFG talk 12:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Improve the Recognition subsection

The political bias of Wikipedia is easy to see even in the Recognition subsection of the article. This political bias can be seen quite easily in almost any politically-charged article: Whenever the article is about a person, group or movement that the extreme left likes, any negative aspects or controversies about said subject will almost invariably be sandwiched between positive traits and adulation. Conversely, whenever the article is about a subject that the extreme left hates, any positive traits will be sandwiched between negative traits, controversies and criticism. This is the sandwiching tactic: To soften the blow, sandwich criticism between positive attributes. Conversely, to diminish accomplishments, sandwich it between negative traits and criticism.

This subsection is no different. It's titled "Recognition", yet immediately starts with a statement against the person. And almost hilariously, the very last words in the subsection are "Vladimir Putin". It couldn't be clearer what the perception and mental image that the section is trying to convey is.

You cannot justify this sandwiching tactic with sources. It's deliberate bias by Wikipedia editors. Editors are the ones who decide what is and is not included in such a section, and in which order. You cannot argue for this tactic with your "we are being neutral, this is what the media is talking about" excuse. I would suggest rewriting this section without the bias and the agenda, to be more neutral in tone. Wopr (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Rather than complaining about an alleged "agenda" of your fellow editors, why don't you suggest actionable changes to the section you dispute? The only way to improve an article is to suggest improvements (or even boldly apply them). — JFG talk 09:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I've made some updates. Should be more balanced now. — JFG talk 10:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It's indeed a bit better now. Credit where credit is due. Wopr (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually never mind. Even if we had such an anti-sandwich rule it wouldn't apply to Donald Trump, since he loves meatloaf sandwiches and lots and lots of burgers. R2 (bleep) 17:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The economic expansion that began in June 2009

Onetwothreeip I would appreciate if you would restore the first paragraph of your reversion. This first paragraph is a concise summary of the Trump economy, and the lead of the subsection, and it should serve as the core of that subsection as we seek to trim excessive details from the article. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla and Onetwothreeip: - I have restored it. However, I acknowledge that we need to cut this article. So I have cut other details from that section. The Mexico thing turned out to be nothing implemented so I cut it. If it actually happens, it can be restored. Also trimmed the China part. Here is a link to what I have done. [20]. I have put the parts cut at User:Onetwothreeip/Donald Trump. starship.paint (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Soibangla Starship.paint It would really have to be written to be more relevant to Trump's economic policies and actions. That information was really just about American economic history, and Trump saying X but the truth is Y. There is no such thing as "the Trump economy", for example. We shouldn't just give Trump's perspective and then an opposing view, we should be objective. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip - you can try your hand at rewriting it. At present, you see a problem to correct, I currently don't, so it's hard for me to rewrite it. starship.paint (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, I am confident the paragraph provides everything you ask for, in a very concise manner. soibangla (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't talk about Trump, it talks about what Trump talks about. It seems like whoever wrote this has decided that Trump's claims about the economy are relevant to the article, and therefore the criticisms and corrections of those claims are also relevant.
The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through Trump's first two years in office, although it did not accelerate as Trump had promised during his campaign. Trump had asserted that a policy of tax cuts and deregulation would result in 3% annualized GDP growth, and perhaps much higher, but it reached a high of 2.9% in his second year, while the average growth rates of job creation and inflation-adjusted weekly earnings were considerably lower than during the preceding four years. Economists were nevertheless impressed with the continued strength of the economy nearly ten years into its expansion, as the unemployment rate continued declining, to below 4%, amid only modest inflation. The Dow increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office, the second best performance of any president since Gerald Ford, exceeded only by Barack Obama's 48.6% gain.[578][579][580][581][582] Through his first 28 months in office, Trump repeatedly and falsely characterized the economy during his presidency as the best in American history.[583]
Just to be clear, this is what I'm talking about. It's mostly irrelevant trivia. Why do we care about "economic expansion" from 2009 onwards here? Why do we care that it didn't "accelerate", or what Trump promised in a campaign? This paragraph is just his stream of opinions followed by explaining why he's wrong, which is not encyclopaedic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
it talks about what Trump talks about is about...Trump. It briefly explains he inherited an expansion, not a contraction he had to turn around, and explains his policy of tax cuts and deregulation and what he said the results would be, versus what they’ve actually been. It touches all the major metrics of GDP, jobs, wages, unemployment rate, inflation and stocks. It notes that the expansion has continued during his two years, and that is quite notable, but is not the best economy ever as he has asserted 135+ times. soibangla (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Why would we care what he "inherited"? We can care about the changes that happened in the economy after his inauguration, such as a change in the GDP growth rate. We can't seriously be expected to compare everything Trump has said with reality, except in the context of an article or section dedicated to his relationship with the truth. I don't know if it was you who wrote this paragraph but it's very poor in explaining economics as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Why would we care what he "inherited"? Because it's important to provide the historical context of the economy he encountered upon taking office. We can care about the changes that happened in the economy after his inauguration, such as a change in the GDP growth rate And the paragraph addresses that. We can't seriously be expected to compare everything Trump has said with reality The paragraph does not attempt to do that. I don't know if it was you who wrote this paragraph but it's very poor in explaining economics as well I did indeed write it, it doesn't attempt to "explain economics," it describes very succinctly what has happened, and I will stand by the paragraph as steadfastly as any other edit I've ever made. The bulk of the paragraph has remained completely intact and unchallenged for the weeks into months it's been there, and you are the only editor who has questioned a single word of it. And now you appear to be changing your rationale for reverting it in the first place. soibangla (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Onetwothreeip I agree this is mostly not talking about the economy, it’s gossipy talking about talking and dubious spin. I’ve offered a version above with that 50%-plus cut out. I would add what’s left is just a few measurements — still not his policies and it’s not Biographical either. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Show of hands, please: who agrees the paragraph is "gossipy" and "dubious spin?" soibangla (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Not intentionally, but the paragraph prioritises political arguments and gossip over an objective analysis of the economic policies. As for historical context, the paragraph contains a very narrow context, one that is entirely designed to debunk some of Trump's statements and then to give credit to him. We should be doing neither of those things. There is no change in the GDP growth rate discussed, only a comparison to Barack Obama which is completely arbitrary. The rest of the content in this section is more like proper encyclopaedic content, but the first paragraph reads just like a summary of media narratives. If this were read one hundred years from now, they would think the author's desire was to refute Trump's statements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps not surprisingly, I fundamentally disagree with virtually everything you've said, and I don't think either of us will persuade the other, but I encourage you to propose alternative language here in Talk. soibangla (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If he inherited the economy during the 2008 recession where would we be ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:E088:7293:D0EB:C566 (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I already gave an alternative phrasing trimming gossip/spin in the thread “Consensus #37 - anyone?” - which said

”The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through President Trump’s first two years in office, with GDP growth at 2.9% in his second year and unemployment declining to below 4%, amid only modest inflation. In the first year after his election, a Trump stock market rally led to the S&P 500 rising 21.2%.”

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Mark, I like your first sentence which is succinct and eliminates all the chatter. I don't agree with the second sentence which cherry-picks only his first year. If we are going to mention the stock market at all it should be for his presidency to date. Sample sources: Market Watch], Fortune, Business Insider. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
What you call "chatter" I call "context," which Mark's proposal completely lacks. soibangla (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
User:MelanieN ok, just without the “Trump stock market rally” to be clear it’s not the same thing as the rally period. The “Trump stock market rally” would be the rally period, circa November 2016 to March 2017 as reported. The overall stock performance from January 2017 to date is an decent bit of objective data, but is a separate topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett Why do you begin talking about his first two years, then switch to only his first year for the stock market? Is it because the market was down during his second year? soibangla (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Soibangla Generally from cleaning the prior content. The first story seemed a cite summation reflective on two-year mark. But a rally story is however long the rally was. The stock market story of greatest WEIGHT seems not a comparison bit but the “Trump stock market rally”. I had a CNN cite to March, but on checking Dow the rise seems more generally from 18,848 on 6 Nov 2016 to 26,617 on 22 January 2018. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I just want to add that discussing metrics like economic growth and share market performance is simply CNN-style pundit chatter from both sides. Let's also avoid saying "President Trump" and other news media terms like "stock market rally". Let's stick to the economic policies of the administration, and their observable effects. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's stick to the economic policies of the administration, and their observable effects OK, here it is:

Trump had asserted that a policy of tax cuts and deregulation would result in 3% annualized GDP growth, and perhaps much higher, but it reached a high of 2.9% in his second year, while the average growth rates of job creation and inflation-adjusted weekly earnings were considerably lower than during the preceding four years. Economists were nevertheless impressed with the continued strength of the economy nearly ten years into its expansion, as the unemployment rate continued declining, to below 4%, amid only modest inflation.

How do you distinguish "metrics like economic growth" from "observable effects"? Is there a way you would propose to observe the effects without using economic metrics? soibangla (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Soibangla But that seems mostly things NOT policy or observed metrics. The phrasing of 3 percent “but” is not giving a Trump policy, it’s spinning 2.9 as a negative. Vague comparison to Obama at 2 odd metrics for 4 year period predating him also is not a Trump policy nor is it giving specific info of Trump numbers. Economists emotions are not a Trump policy, and seems not ‘observable effect’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett Context matters. As the edit says, Trump said his policies would get GDP to 3%, and maybe much higher, but they haven't so far, it has matched the 2015 rate of 2.9%. He also said, but I did not mention to keep the length down, that "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created," but his average job growth has lagged the prior four years, as have wages/earnings (with today's jobs report, average job creation is 13% lower during his first 29 months than during the 29 months that preceded him). These are not "odd" metrics, they are among the top three that Americans care about. It doesn't give "specific info of Trump numbers" because, again, I wanted to keep the length down and not bombard the reader with numbers, they can read the refs for the specifics. soibangla (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Soibangla That is backwards to gossipy talking about talking, and talking about Obama instead of giving information about Trump in policy and objective measures. (p.s. last quarter seems 3.1% so the snipe about 2.9 is outdated, and the latest strong jobs report likely again sets some all-time records.). On the contrary, the common practice is just reporting the percentage unemployment rate and the thousands of jobs created that month. Not some odd percentage of percentage or as some odd comparative and not versus campaign speech snippets. Just the economic facts.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, I don't see that you have established consensus to alter long-standing content that is superior to your version, as I have extensively explained to you but you have chosen to ignore. soibangla (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't altered content "superior" to "my version". I have made copyedits of the first paragraph of that section, which you identified as having been authored by you. Please do not take the alterations personally. I'm more than willing to go through each element. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
How do you distinguish "metrics like economic growth" from "observable effects"? Is there a way you would propose to observe the effects without using economic metrics?
The 3% figure for GDP growth wasn't a metric, it was something that Donald Trump said. Comments by Donald Trump are not inherently notable. We also have no reason to believe that the 2.9% annual GDP growth for a particular quarter is particularly notable. It's not particularly more or less notable than any other quarterly growth. We're certainly not here to evaluate Donald Trump's campaign statements, that can be done in some other section or some other article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I stopped reading when you said I have made copyedits of the first paragraph. No, they were significant changes to the meaning. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=905652241&oldid=905648782 soibangla (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Soibangla I agree that my editing changed the meaning of some sentences. That was the intention. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus #37 - anyone?

#Current consensus #37 is now a, well, a consensus. It had wide support, but nobody is (so far) volunteering to help implement it. Meanwhile the article is currently exceeding the template include size limit, again.

I imagined that I could just go in and start removing the overly-detailed content that the resolution was meant to eliminate. I didn't get very far before I realized that it would need to be replaced by much shorter, summary-level content. And that's where I fall short. Writing prose from scratch is not my forte, as some of you may have noticed.

For example, Donald Trump#Economy and trade is currently 600 words at a detail level, and I think it could be reduced to under a hundred words of summary-level.

Until the existing over-detail has been eliminated, it will be hard to prevent the addition of more of it, and the consensus will have no beneficial effect. Is there anyone who feels they can take on some of this task in the near future? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

At some point recently, someone removed in its entirety this tight summary as the lead paragraph of Donald Trump#Economy and trade. It should be restored in favor of removing other details. This is 140 words:

The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through Trump's first two years in office, although it did not accelerate as Trump had promised during his campaign. Trump had asserted that a policy of tax cuts and deregulation would result in 3% annualized GDP growth, and perhaps much higher, but it reached a high of 2.9% in his second year, while the average growth rates of job creation and inflation-adjusted weekly earnings were considerably lower than during the preceding four years. Economists were nevertheless impressed with the continued strength of the economy nearly ten years into its expansion, as the unemployment rate continued declining, to below 4%, amid only modest inflation. The Dow increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office, the second best performance of any president since Gerald Ford, exceeded only by Barack Obama's 48.6% gain.

soibangla (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That’s mostly talking about talking, and/or over half spent in a number of POV digressions/spin rather than a summary of the economy, as noted in “The economic expansion” below. One could greatly reduce by just snipping gossipy bits or appearing as seeking negative comparisons. Try

“The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued though President Trump’s first two years in office, with GDP at 2.9% in his second year and unemployment declining to below 4%, amid only modest inflation. In the first year after his election, a Trump stock market rally led to the S&P rising 21.2%.”

(The 21% from CNBC “One year later” about Trump stock market rally. Not done much since then.) ((p.s. One could go into Breitbart “All the experts who told us stocks would crash if Trump won” but it’s not BLP topics. Not everything can go here.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Transclude Presidency?

In my view, the goals of our consensus #37 and the lead of Presidency of Donald Trump are very similar; i.e. the appropriate levels of detail are about the same. I think we should consider replacing the content of Donald Trump#Presidency—all of it, including its subsections—with a transclusion of that lead, excluding its first sentence for formatting reasons. Citations would have to be added to that lead, but it already has a few so that wouldn't be a departure from current convention there. There are certainly arguments to be made against this, but I believe they are outweighed by the obvious benefits. Except for a high-level "executive summary", the Presidency article should be the primary go-to for information about his presidency.

This concept is sandboxed here.

Do not count this comment as a !vote, I have !voted separately below. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment this is an important decision that should not be rushed (not saying it has been). Please allow ample time for people to consider the proposal and comment, especially given the ongoing governance and harassment crisis. I'm installing new baseboards in the dining rooms, so I don't have time to look at this in depth right now.- MrX 🖋 19:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    Agreed. You have multiple dining rooms? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    Ha. No just one.- MrX 🖋 20:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a terrible idea. No other president’s article is trimmed down to nothing like this. This article gives more coverage about his divorces or bankruptcies than it would with this pretense at covering his entire presidency. 19:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN alt (talk • contribs)
    Do we have a spinoff article about his divorces? If not, this is the only place to put that information. The Presidency article should be viewed as an extension of this one, done merely for size reasons, and this article should not be expected to cover his entire presidency at that level of detail. I agree that this has not been widely done for other presidents, but I disagree that that's an argument against it. Better ideas must be given the chance to prevail. Disagree that it's a better idea, but please don't presume that all better ideas have already been implemented. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose — Trump is notable as a President, and his presidency should be fully covered in this article. I think there is a difference in scope. This article is about Trump the man, whereas the "Presidency" article is about his government as a whole.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning support with concerns. The proposal is better than what we currently have on this article, but this would direct people to the presidency article over this article, and that article has a lot of problems too. I think we can go ahead with the transcluding proposal temporarily until we can create a better presidency section natively in this article. The presidency section of this article should eventually be more detailed than the lead of the presidency article, but for now it makes sense to do this, just not permanently. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:45FD:73DE:5B30:D6DD (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Strongly oppose viewing this article as needing to stand alone regarding the presidency; that's precisely why we have the {{Main}} hatnote. Readers will click through, or not, depending on their level of interest in the detail about the presidency. I find the third, middle level of detail, with all its attendant issues and problems, very hard to justify. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Mandruss, we already know you are a strong support. How do we know? You proposed it here in the first place, and you have supported it/argued for it in replying to pretty much every comment here. One !vote is enough. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
"I think we should consider" does not equate to strong support in my book. But I have added a bolded comment above, just in case someone assessing consensus here might do that so carelessly as not to notice that I have !voted separately for the sake of consistency, simplicity, and organization. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
As for you have supported it/argued for it in replying to pretty much every comment here, you should probably have another look. At that time I had replied once in support of the proposal:[21] The rest of my replies have been of the nature of "You caught me in the middle of some testing" and "Link fixed". Actually I have replied to no other Oppose !vote, except for "Link fixed". Perhaps you could strike that and try to be more judicious about such statements? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There was a largish section of another article transcluded into this one two to three years ago. If I recall correctly, I removed it because it created some difficulties. This article has primacy, if for no other reason than it has 2,634 page watchers compared to 255 for the presidency article. This article has nearly 18 times as much traffic as the presidency article. I don't think it is desirable to duplicate large amounts of content, word for word, between articles. Transcluding would likely confuse inexperienced editors wishing to edit the presidency section of this article.- MrX 🖋 02:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - does not give what #37 calls for. The Presidency LEAD does not fit the #37 BLP part to be things likely to have a lasting impact on his life or the long-term legacy, and has things other than the limit set by #37. The presidency summary just isn’t the kind of summary that #37 says should be here & what here should be limited to. On a Side note, I see that the link from #37 isn’t properly going to archive 99. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    Link fixed. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    p.s. I do think that length seems better, and would support manually deleting way down as being in line with #37. And it was a clever thought. Markbassett (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't really understand the view that doing a transclusion like this would somehow mean giving Trump's presidency less coverage. If anything, the reverse is true; moreover, it will encourage more readers to click through to Presidency of Donald Trump, it'll ensure that article gets more attention, it'll reduce the length burden on this article, and it will adhere more strongly to the summary style so desirable in articles like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Alternate proposal Removing most of the information about his presidency really serves our readers badly. For a less controversial/less damaging trim to the article, why not replace our extensive coverage under “Business career” with the lead section of Business career of Donald Trump - with subsections using the leads of Legal affairs of Donald Trump, Trump University, and Donald J. Trump Foundation? I’m not actually a fan of this either, but it makes a lot more sense than stripping out all detail about his presidency - the main thing people are coming to this article to find out about. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Applaud the efforts to trim the article but would prefer we eliminate a whole slew of other things of little consequence. I also debate the chances many will "click through" via a subarticle link to get to the meat of the discussion on what Trump is now know mostly for worldwide, his presidency. Therefore, I humbly oppose this otherwise fair effort to trim the article down.--MONGO (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Rather than click through, they will try to add the missing stuff themselves - and/or come to this talk page in outrage because we don't mention or go into any detail about what they think is important. Are we ready for that onslaught? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm certainly prepared to cross that bridge when and if we come to it, nothing is irreversible, and I oppose the use of crystal balls in Wikipedia content decision-making. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The presidency is already the most defining legacy of Trump's life. Transcluding it from another article is just lazy, and prone to confusion for readers and occasional editors. — JFG talk 02:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus sought re Presidency summary

OK, seeking ideas on how to implement Consensus#37 “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.”

Concerns seemed

  • How to determine “likely to” and what “lasting” or “long-term” means
  • How to bound “borderline or debatable”.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Inputs

  • “Likely” is shown untrue simply by waiting — if the story coverage basically ceases within a month, it is open for removal.
  • SCOPE - I read “related to” presidency as section 6 (Presidency) — and also 2.6 (Conflicts of interest), 4 (Public profile) and 5 (Political career). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Objection

I removed #37 from the "consensus" listings at the top of the page. There is no such consensus. I see that Mandruss added it a week ago, but this seems to be his idea or proposal (hence "resolved"; that language is used for a proposal, not a result), and I doubt if most people will recognize it as something they agreed to. This is the first time I have seen it. User:Mandruss, where did this come from? I for one do not agree with it, and as far as I can see it has not been the result of any discussion here. (It's true I was gone when it was inserted, but I don't think I missed anything major). It was suggested that his presidency should be reduced to the lead of the Presidency article, but that was opposed by a majority here (by my count, four in favor, six opposed). I suggested that a summary-only approach could better be applied to his business career, but nobody picked up on that. I'm going to be gone for another week. but I want to reiterate my strong objection to the notion that his presidency should be reduced to a summary in this article. Summarize other, less important stuff if you are determined to reduce the size of the article.-- MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - User:Mandruss, where did this come from? It came from the discussion linked from the consensus entry that you removed. That's how the consensus list works. While I did close the discussion, involved close is permitted when consensus is sufficiently clear. I judged that 8–3 was sufficiently clear, subject to objection as always, and no one objected to either the close or the closer until now. I did nothing remotely wrong or even untoward here; this is how the process has worked on this page for years. One unstricken mistaken accusation of me at a time, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Since #37 was entirely in process, and since you're going to be gone for another week, I'll restore the consensus list entry for now. From your comments I can only guess that you may have confused #37 with the question at #Transclude Presidency?. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I did confuse it with the transclusion suggestion. At least I saw that one. So this "consensus" for major, major changes to the article is based on one lightly attended discussion (I was not the only one to miss it, and no-one was pinged). Well, since I will be gone for the next week, please tally me as a "no" vote on any proposal that eliminates most of the "presidency" detail in favor of a bare-bones summary. Why in the world can't you focus on taking the ax to less important content like "family and personal life" or "business career" or "public profile"? Why cut the one area that readers actually want to see? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Because the problem isn’t mostly in the ~14 screens giving his life story, the problem is mostly in the ~28 further screens largely duplicating the Presidency of Donald Trump. (Sometimes direct cut-paste duplicates.) There is just a feasibility issue to going on with this, as there is another ~18 months to his term to be fit in with presumably some more impeachment talk, more wall talk, a re-election campaign, claims of meddling (maybe Chinese this time for variety), probably further world events, and so on. So time to talk some guidance on ‘not everything can fit here’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Edits in "Racial views" section

As part of a general effort to trim the article, Onetwothreeip recently made some changes to the "Racial views" section,[22] which were reverted by MrX on the basis of "I do not agree".[23] I feel that the changes were useful and proportionate, especially the trimming of excessive citations, therefore I have restored them.[24] I also feel that this section could be further trimmed yet. Readers who want more detail can refer to the main article Racial views of Donald Trump linked at the top of the section. Let's discuss. — JFG talk 09:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there has been any substantial changes in the section, only some copyediting and trimming excessive citations. I agree that the section's written content can be trimmed, and that is as true of this section as it is of most sections in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
We should not remove sources for such a contentious claim. Removing NYT and leaving Vox seems to be a recurrent theme with these bold edits. In a couple of weeks, there will be editors (with a single character for their user page) complaining that Trump is not a racist because of biased sources, etc, etc. Trump blaming Clinton is important, and has been discussed previously. The section does not need trimming. Other sections probably do. This material needs to be restored. - MrX 🖋 10:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Every contentious claim remains sourced. While I consider The New York Times to be a better source than Vox when all else is equal, sometimes the content is simply more relevant to a Vox reference than a New York Times reference. We do not need to give in to hypothetical disgruntled editors by adding more sources when the sources we already have are more than sufficient to verify the material. It's important to note that this article is not actually calling Trump racist, it is reflecting that certain things he has said and done have been considered racist, and that these considerations are notable.
The New York Times is the U.S. newspaper of record. They have the most credentialed, most reputable newsroom in the country. I oppose the removal of references to the Times on a WP:CITEKILL basis other than under exceptional circumstances. The "relevance" of content to a source really doesn't matter. When choosing among reliable sources, we should choose the most reliable ones that support the content. R2 (bleep) 17:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you outline what material you believe has been removed? My edits were mostly copyediting and trimming citations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
And after restoring 123IP's changes, I strived to further improve the text. Nothing substantial has been removed, just moderately rephrased and slightly trimmed. Editors can keep going from here. — JFG talk 19:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2019

WP:NOTFORUM Please do not use this space to vent your personal thoughts on the man.Mgasparin (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Donald Trump definitely differently clued. He is missing a few lights on his Christmas Tree. You may compare him to a boat. Now, some politicians, they also have a boat. We have seen some of there boats float. Yes, they have holes, and they are barely bailing out fast enough, but they are above water. Donald Trump's boat is sitting at the bottom of the ocean filled with dead bodies and fish feasting. Now it only has one hole in it, but the problem is, the hole takes up the entire bottom of the boat. To make matters worse, his boat is filled with sharks. Ryan Diggory (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This is not a forum. If you have a real request, please phrase it in the form of "change x to y" and include a reliable source. Mgasparin (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Rape lawsuit and affidavits

I propose that we link to the Donald Trump & Jeffrey Epstein Rape Lawsuit and Affidavits alongside describing Labor Secretary Alex Acosta's plea bargain offer allowing Epstein to avoid jail time for the alleged sexual abuse of, "nearly three dozen girls, mostly 13-16 years old, at his Palm Beach mansion from 1999 to 2006," when he was alleged to have used the girls and staff to help recruit other young girls, sometimes booking "three or four girls a day." I propose that this information be added to the "Hush payments" section, because of mainstream news reports such as this, and the plea bargain terms. EllenCT (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

At this point it's Trump guilt by association with Epstein (old news) and Acosta (new news), with no shortage of innuendo. Wait for more. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Not for this article. You might ask at the allegations article, but the October 2016 case just before election was viewed with suspicion by the major RS and did not get coverage, as contrasted to actual tapes and people willing to appear in public allegations. This gets mentioned occasionally in TALK, but seems a fringe item. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree this is not ready for "primetime" yet, but the notion that it is a "fringe item" is ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It’s not part of mainstream or WP:MAINSTREAM, and I would advise against running the question thru yet another time after many rejections. At most it would seem another in the Allegations article. But if you want to rerun the question here yet again, you can. This morning’s story du jour was Bill Clinton alleged involvement — all just SPECULATION as far as I see. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Clinton has nothing do with this..he`s not president trump is..please add the links...the information is relevant.2600:1702:2340:9470:1903:7553:C980:E8BE (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Bassett, Laura (July 11, 2019). "When Does America Reckon with the Gravity of Donald Trump's Alleged Rapes?". GQ. Retrieved 12 July 2019. EllenCT (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus material removed

The Four Deuces improperly deleted material that has consensus for inclusion, discussed here. This material should be restored. Oh, and it doesn't violate WP:WEASEL.- MrX 🖋 11:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that paragraph came from another article that was merged into here. There are three major issues here. First of all, we should give more careful consideration to how we actually discuss Trump's mental health, if at all. Secondly, we don't need to be talking about some petition from the public about his mental health. Thirdly, his comments such as "very stable genius" are clearly added to the end of that paragraph for non-neutral purposes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It does not appear that The Four Deuces and Onetwothreeip participated in those discussions leading me to conclude that a formal Rfc may be needed to bring in outside voices as well as the regulars here to properly determine concensus. For the record, I think the changes made by Onetwothreeip are much better and more neutral.--MONGO (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
They can propose a new consensus if they like, but for now the current consensus stands. It needs to be restored.- MrX 🖋 13:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The text begins, "Numerous public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals have speculated that Trump may have mental health issues. The most common diagnosis cited is narcissistic personality disorder [NPD], some cite delusional disorder; some suggest early dementia." We could also say that numerous scientists dispute global warming or some scientists claim aliens have landed. While true, it implies a higher level of support than actually exists. But Allen Frances, who chaired the task force that defined NPD, says that Trump "may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn't make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder."[25] Most mental health professionals of course will not disgnose a person they have not examined. So I see this as a BLP violation. TFD (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
To be clear..it IS a BLP violation, even for a public figure. But I still say a formal Rfc is mandatory.--MONGO (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we could discuss it first. I don't necessarily mind that we mention that some mental health professionals consider Trump mentally ill, if sufficient weight exists, just that it is presented as an undisputed finding. I think that first we need to determine the extent to which the assessment is accepted, and how unusual it is for a U.S. president. I suspect that a lot of them - from both parties - would have scored high on personality disorder scales. TFD (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
With the multitude of good quality reliable sources available, it is hard for me to see how this could possibly be a violation of WP:BLP, a policy with which most of us are intimately familiar. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLP says, "Material about living persons...must be written with the greatest care and attention to...neutrality." You have only presented the opinion that Trump is mentally disturbed and senile. In order to meet weight you need to establish that is a consensus view among mental health experts and that no other opinion exists, except on the fringe. Your use of the term "multitude" is weasel-wording, since it implies there is a consensus for these views, yet does not explain the relative weight of these views. For example, the number of people who donated to Swalwell's campaign is higher than the number of mental health professionals who diagnosed Trump, but that does not mean that relatively speaking he had much support. TFD (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
User:The Four Deuces - I’m thinking mental health allegations just aren’t WP:MAINSTREAM. The main cites shown seem a ranty book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and an online survey, and a cute tweet snip responding to Fire and Fury assertions he’s stupid which is off topic of mental health. I just expect authorities in the field regard armchair diagnosis as unethical and unreliable so do not do it. That a narrative is going around is sure. But it seems like much of it may be Tabloid stuff or partisan Smear campaign. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Markbassett, that's basically my position as well. The idea that a psychiatrist can diagnose someone that they've never examined is not a mainstream view, and in fact, is considered unethical, dangerous, and inaccurate by the profession. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to give a platform to these kinds of views. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Armchair" psychiatric diagnoses such as these are, by their very nature, fringe opinions. The APA, which is the largest and most authoritative organization for psychiatrists, has made it clear that "a proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments. Psychiatrists are medical doctors; evaluating mental illness is no less thorough than diagnosing diabetes or heart disease... The Goldwater Rule embodies these concepts and makes it unethical for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion to the media about a public figure unless the psychiatrist has examined the person and has proper authorization to provide the statement." [[26]] In simpler terms, these kind of armchair diagnoses are junk science and do not belong in a BLP. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the APA says. We go by what reliable sources say, and we have oodles of them to draw from. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It does, though. The fact remains that "armchair" diagnoses are considered junk science by the most authoritative organizations out there. This obviously raises WP:DUE concerns, as we have a massive paragraph which legitimizes a type of diagnosis that is not considered valid by the profession. In fact, it doesn't seem to note anywhere that this is not considered a valid diagnosis. Perhaps such a thing should be added. In any event, it's quite a lot of space devoted to junk science. On top of that, BLP concerns are raised because it implies that these conditions make Trump "dangerous", to use the wording of the material. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Scjessey, the APA is the reliable source though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Not this again! We have discussed this here, at length, at least twice in the past month. Including something on this subject is the consensus here, twice, in addition to the consensus at AfD that the material from Health of Donald Trump should be merged here, carefully and respectfully, which is what the final paragraph does. I am getting sick and tired of people removing consensus material just because they don't like it. We could have a new discussion, of course, but it would be necessary to ping all the people who commented at the previous two or three discussions; if we are going to be hashing out this issue again and again, it's not fair to exclude their opinion just because they thought it was settled and moved on. Meanwhile I am going to restore the paragraph, and it should stay until consensus - not just a few people, but consensus - overrules the previous talk page discussions and the instructions at the AfD, and says to remove it. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree. I have no strong feelings about this except that the existing consensus should be respected. R2 (bleep) 18:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC) The content should be restored and this discussion closed, unless there's something really new or groundbreaking. This seems exceedingly unlikely given how recent the consensus was. Editors who take issue with the consensus can pursue dispute resolution. R2 (bleep) 18:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Melanie..its not just a few folks...I see multiple editors removing it and chiming in now that did not participate in the earlier discussions. Restore if you must but we really should have a formal Rfc to invite all interested to participate and broaden the input of Wikipedians. With a formal Rfc at least there will be no way to reverse or edit war over the issue once a neutral admin closes that discussion.--MONGO (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Start an RfC then. The existing consensus stands until it changes. There is no rule that consensus can only be obtained via RfC on some issues, or that consensus outside of an RfC requires unanimity. R2 (bleep) 18:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
nonsense. There is no existing consensus as is clear from his thread. This is a BLP, and there is no way the paragraph should be included while such question marks hang over it. To me it looks like pure speculation, albeit well-sourced speculation. IMHO Wikipedia is not the place for that. I suggest you remove it again pending the promised RFC.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It appears that there are definitely more people against the inclusion of this material than there are for the inclusion of this material. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The AfD result was merge, not delete. I'm prepared to discuss individual details, but I would strongly oppose outright removal of the content. Between the AfD and prior discussion here, there is ample consensus to address the issue in a relatively short paragraph buried deep in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The AfD was for very selective merge, with caution about ‘armchair diagnosis’ - including that was not called for by AfD. The ‘armchair diagnosis’ or not is a purely a #36 topic, perhaps flawed and surely predictable that it was going to get discussed further. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I think I hear you saying that the AfD close largely left the specifics of what to include up to us on this page. That seems a fair reading of the situation, especially considering the closer's comments in this post-close discussion on the closer's UTP. The closer added that "small amendment" to the close only after being lobbied out-of-process by one or two editors, easily missed by editors who might have had other views of the situation. I doubt there's a hard policy against that—the closer would have cited it—but it fails my smell test. Any such post-close discussion should have taken place in plain view on the AfD page. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, my read was the AfD directed discussion and not specific content. Now #36 directs one of the five para resulting, but not specific wording or much in guiding principles. That there would be further debate and edits seemed inevitable and necessary to me. Unrealistic to think 6 days was enough, or that something debated umpteen times before would cease to be a topic now. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Consensus #36 has been listed since June 19 with no serious discussion about it between then and now. R2 (bleep) 18:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Proposed Addition. This is my proposed addition for the end of the paragraph as a possible compromise solution. I can't seem to edit the article at this time. -- "However, the American Psychiatric Association considers the diagnosis of a public figure without an in-person examination to be unethical." [[27]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmic Sans (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    The quite neutral footnote about the Goldwater rule, composed by me and User:MelanieN on 19 June, was removed here. We discussed it, we reached agreement, I waited for 5 days for other comments, there was no other interest, so I added it. I didn't feel an RfC was warranted for that relatively minor issue, and that addition was certainly not precluded by the very vague #Current consensus #36. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems odd that junk science would receive a paragraph in the article while the actual accepted standard would be relegated to a footnote. It would be like having a paragraph espousing climate change denial with a little footnote saying "by the way, all of the above is incorrect." Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
No problem! With his stance on the climate, Trump is a well known science denier anyway! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Fine with me, make it open prose, but tell both sides of the Goldwater rule issue, as the footnote did. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - There was an amendment to the close of the AfD regarding the armchair diagnoses:

Amendment to close: A small amendment per a request on my talk page: Given that many of the concerns here are about the reliability of medical information and whether "armchair diagnoses" by people who have not personally examined Trump are actually reliable, as well as more general gossip/unencyclopedicity concerns, the editors who carry out the merger should probably consider a very selective merge that only includes the good material supported by top-notch sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 3:35 am, 14 June 2019, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−5) (reply)

There was also the BLPN discussion that said the armchair diagnoses was Coatrack. I support the proposal by MONGO to call an RfC. I suggest proposing whether (a) we keep the health section that was deleted, or (b) limit that section to include only a summary of the examining doctor's report. Atsme Talk 📧 05:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Why not, we RfC less significant things all the time. But the version including the non-examining MH professionals' opinions should include the Goldwater rule footnote that I referred to above. If the RfC simply refers to a status quo content, the footnote should be re-added first. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
No objection to another RfC to give the deplorables another chance to stamp their feet, but I'll be arguing vociferously in favor of the text as decided previously that was well supported by reliable sources and was part of the original merge agreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
We can't just quote the Goldwater rule unless it is sourced to a secondary source that connects it to this case per synthesis and also it is implicitly accusing a group of mental health experts of failing professional ethics. It also ignores the main reason for rejecting these diagnoses, that they are unlikely. Trump passed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, indicating he did not have the symptoms that prceded dementia.[28] And the psychiatrist who wrote the criteria for NPD says Trump does not have it.
@Scjessey: before holding an RfC would you have any objections to noting in the article that other views exist?
TFD (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
FYI, this APA news release does connect the Goldwater Rule to the President. https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I have restored the footnote for now. I do think a footnote is the best way to handle that issue but am open to other formats. I do agree that a formal RfC would the best way to reach a definitive conclusion on this - rather than three or four informal discussions, each participated in by different people, as is the current case. I am out of town right now; if no one has proposed an RfC by the time I get back I will start one myself --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Any RfC should ping all participants in the prior discussion as well as this one. R2 (bleep) 16:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that goes against Wikipedia:Canvassing - "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions." In this case you would be canvassing editors from a group which voted in favor of one position. Editors are perfectly capable of following this discussion without being canvassed. TFD (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
No, it's explicitly allowed by WP:APPNOTE (notifications allowed to Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)), and if whoever starts the RfC doesn't do it, I will. R2 (bleep) 19:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
That's how I read the contradictory, confusing, incongruent (i.e. typical) guidance. We spend as much time debating unclear process rules as we do content. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
R2, I stand corrected. But won't it be hard to identify and contact every editor who has participated in previous discussions on this and other closely related topics? You've got 101 archived pages to go through. TFD (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

(Either) an edit request or a grammar debate

"He became the oldest first-term U.S. president,[c] and the first one without prior military or government service."

This is incorrect, Barack Obama is without prior military service too.

It should be changed to: "He became the oldest first-term U.S. president." 212.3.17.230 (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - Read the sentence again and see Barack Obama#Legislative career for Obama's prior government service. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I've made a slight alteration to remove possible confusion about this. It is clear the IP address thought the quote meant that all other presidents had both military and government experience. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
And I've challenged that by reversion. I can't see adding an extraneous word to a sentence that has stood unchanged for years, with no more justification than a misunderstanding by one reader from Sweden (no disrespect to the home of the Nobel Prize, Jenny Lind, ABBA, and Swedish meatballs and massage). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
You should withdraw that disgraceful and quite frankly confusing remark. You could have made whatever point you're trying to make without that. We should aim to write in the clearest way possible, and it is reasonable to act on instances where there is demonstrated to be a lack of clarity. If you object to "without either prior military or government service", I would accept "without either military or government service", as it can be assumed the service refers to the past. I would also change "service" to "experience". Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
"Or" implies "either". That's basic English grammar. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but we can make it clearer by changing a word. The burden is on us to present the information as clearly as possible, not on the reader. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, it is suboptimal writing to add extraneous words, and the "lack of clarity" has not been sufficiently demonstrated to justify doing that. If clarity could be improved without either the extraneous word or something equally undesirable, I'd have no objection. Note that the meaning of the preceding sentence was perfectly clear without the stricken word. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not extraneous to write a sentence that includes both "either" and "or", that is very standard. I'm not proposing to add any words though, just to change one word. Obviously the meaning of the word is not perfectly clear if someone has validly expressed confusion over the terms. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
We are now talking in circles, so it's time to wait for other comments. I've changed the heading to something perhaps more meaningful. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you would have reverted it or paid much attention to it at all if it wasn't in the context of this edit request. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
And you would be wrong about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the existing version of the sentence. It has been stable and well understood for years, after being carefully crafted for brevity and exhaustively discussed during its conception. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong with it either, I just think it could be better, and without adding any words. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a minor point, but I prefer Mandruss's version (the status quo) as well. Onetwothreeip's version is slightly more awkward in my view. I hope we can move on. R2 (bleep) 16:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
+1 for "status quo is fine" on this one. — JFG talk 20:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • CHANGE: The old version *is* ambiguous, the R2 version is a bit better, but small as it may be, I think at least trying (instead of arguing over whether to try) is the obvious better course.
  • Was: and the first one without prior military or government service.
  • R2: and the first one without either military or government service.
  • or?: and the first without any prior military or government service.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing ambiguous about using "or" without the correlative conjunction, as you would have to if there was a third object: "the first one without prior military, public, or government service." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

No need for “either”. The existing sentence is perfectly clear. MelanieN alt (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources don't use "Winklmayr"

JFG, RE your edit (haven't you noticed by now that I do my research?:): Umm … yeah they do: By the time Mr. Trump started getting serious with a Czech model named Ivana Winklmayr, Mr. Cohn had become something of an expert on marriage.[1] On Saturday, April 9, 1977, after a bachelor’s party at Maxwell’s Plum, Donald Trump married Ivana Winklmayr ar Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan.[2] (for Blair ref, see "Further reading" in the article)

References

  1. ^ Mahler, Jonathan; Flegenheimer, Matt (June 20, 2016). "What Donald Trump Learned From Joseph McCarthy's Right-Hand Man". The New York Times. Retrieved June 3, 2019.
  2. ^ Blair 2015, p. 300.

Also, NYC Marriage Index is available online: https://nycmarriageindex.com/. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected, thanks for the pointer to the NY marriage database; the sources I had read used "Zelníčková". Still, do we need to refer to the name of Ivana's prior husband in this article? That's relevant to her biography, not Trump's, especially seeing that she had divorced Winklmayr in 1973, 4 years before marrying Trump. I think her maiden name is more appropriate to identify her in this context. — JFG talk 11:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Why is her maiden name more appropriate? She had kept her married name after the divorce, she wasn't famous under her maiden or her married name, and her name wasn't Zelníčková when she got married to Trump (or after the divorce from Trump). Maybe other editors have thoughts on the matter? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Isn't there a guideline somewhere to the effect that we're not bound to use the "official" names of things? If most or all of the Winklmayr support is in the NY Marriage Database, I'd be inclined to discount that as a purely legal matter. But even if it's included, isn't Zelníčková far more common in sources? Besides, I flipped a coin and it came up Zelníčková. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, my impression also is that has more WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
We should use whichever name is more well-known. It's why Elton John's article is named Elton John instead of Reginald Kenneth Dwight. (I personally do not know whether Winklmayr or Zelníčková is more well-known.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ye olde unsubstantiated coatrack accusation

JFG, RE this edit summary: WP:COATRACK isn't an explanation, it's an unsubstantiated claim. Please, explain. PS.: How's that GA nomination going? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not JFG, but I see where he was going with it. Mentioning Trump's sister is appropriate for the article, but it's not an invitation to go into the weeds on his sister's dealings. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I would agree with Comic Sans. This article is about Trump, not his sister's job. Also, concerning the GA, it was quickfailed on the basis of stability and article length, though I would disagree with the reviewer that the article is too long. Mgasparin (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_101&oldid=1171579487"