Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 91

This is an archive of past discussions about Donald Trump. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 85

←

Archive 89

→

Campaign rally photo

Re: [1][2]

Should this photo be included in the article?

Oppose - Low reader value. A generic photo of a stadium crowd; nothing in it distinguishes it from the crowd at, say, a Cincinnati Cyclones hockey game; in fact we're taking the photographer's word for what it portrays. Conveys no information except that Trump attracted a large crowd to a rally, which is unremarkable considering he was elected president. A photo of a small crowd at a Trump campaign rally would be more worthy of inclusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Makes no sense to add it to this article. If it was an article on that particular gathering, yes. But just for the Trump bio? No. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Support – Trump's campaign was notable for his rally crowds and occasional barbs thrown at opponents being unable to attract people. Illustrating this with a "generic photo" of a stadium packed with Trump supporters is appropriate. Questioning the photographer's description of the picture is an unwarranted assumption of bad faith, and we could easily find a similar picture if there were any serious doubts about authenticity. The proposal to illustrate Trump's campaign rallies by a small crowd because that would be exceptional, therefore worthy of inclusion, sounds to me like the opposite of what we do in Wikipedia: we document the generic over the exceptional. — JFG ^talk 04:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
No assumption of bad faith. I didn't mean to suggest that the photo may be a fraud—there's no doubt Trump had rallies like that, so why would such a photo need to be faked? However, we are in fact taking the photog's word for it because there is nothing in the photo to identify it as a campaign rally, let alone a Trump rally, and I was merely using that to emphasize the generic nature of the photo.
I might feel different about a photo that actually showed Trump in it, or at least had something to identify it as a Trump rally. (Before I'm "corrected" on that point, I now see two TRUMP campaign signs near the right edge of the photo, one of which can be read only with maximum zoom. I'm speaking of something that doesn't require such close inspection.) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The sea of MAGA hats needs no close inspection, even to my tired eyes…

I do agree that we could use another picture. — JFG ^talk 16:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We know those are MAGA hats only because we accept that it's a Trump rally, so that's a circular argument (or some equally invalid logical fallacy; I should spend the time to learn the names of these things). Crowds at sports events often have a disproportionate amount of team colors. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - It doesn't belong aside the section linked to above (Campaign Rhetoric), and I can't find a place in this article where it does. --HunterM267 ^talk 04:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose that specific image. No prejudice against a superior image. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternate rally pictures

From the existing stuff on Wikimedia, I'd suggest one of those. Hard to find a really good view, because if you focus on Trump, you can't see the crowd, and if you show the crowd, Trump is just a dot. — JFG ^talk 16:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Same objections. No material difference. Find one with a 30-foot (9.1 m) TRUMP 2016 banner behind the stage and we can talk. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A big banner says "hey, Trump held campaign rallies". A big crowd says "hey, Trump attracted large crowds". Which of these two true assertions is more notable? — JFG ^talk 17:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

My preference would be an image that has both characteristics. Given the false binary you present, probably the latter is more notable. Also completely generic. The concept that we should avoid images that "could be anything" is not one I invented, and my second choice is no image.
Let's assume neither of us is going to be swayed by the other, shall we? This is not a winnable debate. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been trying to sway you, just helping each other express the reasons for picking a picture or another, or none. Certainly if we could find a picture with both a large crowd and highly-visible Trump signage, that would be a keeper. I haven't seen this combo on MediaWiki yet, except very blurred ones. Time to search the wide wild web… — JFG ^talk 20:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Inauguration image

This image of Trump being sworn in was removed with the edit summary "no need for two inauguration images in the same article". But the other inauguration image, which had been added only hours earlier, was also removed. I think the original inauguration image should be restored. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The other inauguration image to which I referred was, and still is, at Donald Trump#Family. If you want to propose moving it to a different section, propose away, but we don't need two inauguration images. Incidentally, the image I removed caused minor but significant layout problems where it was, seen here, being taller than the section containing it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If possible we should have only one inauguration image, but if we don't have another image to show his family using two from the same event will have to suffice. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The inauguration picture was selected a long time ago as the best-quality picture of the whole Trump clan. Accordingly, I'd keep it in the Family section, and leave the "Early actions" section with no extra picture. If people want more illustrations from that time period, we could restore one of the transition pictures that used to show Trump chatting with Obama in the Oval Office. — JFG ^talk 21:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I presumed Mandruss was referring to the inauguration image added before their series of edits. I do not have a strong enough opinion to argue for inclusion if the swearing in ceremony image was not removed mistakenly. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Birtherism in the lede?

Did I miss something? Why isn't Trump's promotion of Obama birther conspiracy theories in the lede? That's how he started his career in politics prior to his 2016 run. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall it ever being in the lede, but I agree there is a good argument it should be. Few would argue Trump would not be president, were it not for his leading role in birtherism. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Huh, I could've sworn I got it into the article or at the very least pushed for its inclusion at some point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Off topic, personal ~Awilley (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"I could have sworn I got it into the article or at least pushed for its inclusion at some point." Well that sure sounds like an admission of POV pushing if I ever heard one.--MONGO (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm I thought it was in there as well. We could always ask Volunteer Marek, who I hear has made an edit or two here. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"Few would argue Trump would not be president, were it not for his leading role in birtherism"...I would argue against that, so count me as one of the few. Perhaps he was elected President mainly because his opponent was perceived to be unworthy of the position, so unworthy in fact that Trump had a wider electoral college margin of victory than did Kennedy, GW Bush either time or Nixon in 68 and Wilson in 1916 to name a few. The narrative that those that voted for Trump must have been bigots is old, tired, insulting and wrong.--MONGO (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

" Trump had a wider electoral college margin of victory than..." - so what? How does that relate to the people who VOTED for Trump and what motivated them? You know, the popular vote? And if you got sources for the part about "narrative that those that voted for Trump must have been bigots is old, tired, insulting and wrong", let's see'em. Because what I see is the confirmation of that narrative more and more each day. Hell, you see it here on Wikipedia each day.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that another editor might be POV pushing, MONGO, followed by leaping right into deep end of the POV pushing swimming pool yourself. Your analysis of electoral college margins of victory may be accurate but has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump's well-known advocacy of birtherism. Your analysis based on your personal opinion of the bigotry (or lack thereof) of Trump voters is far less objective and even more dramatically off topic. The question before us is whether espousing birtherist conspiracy theories was or was not the major issue in Trump's participation in public policy debates in the years right before his presidential campaign. I think that a reading of the reliable news sources published before his campaign announcement says "yes it was", and that nothing that reliable historians have written since then contradicts the key role that birtherist advocacy played in Trump's life story at that time. I support a sentence or two of NPOV content about his advocacy of birtherism in the lead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You have it a little wrong here. "The question before us is whether espousing birtherist conspiracy theories was or was not the major issue in Trump's participation in public policy debates in the years right before his presidential campaign." This is not the presidency article, this is his main BLP. You should be asking if it is a major issue for his whole life. Which it is not. PackMecEng (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

He did reject that eventually of course or will we need 2-3 more sentences to mention that fact or shall that be omitted? That the issue will eventually wind up being an entire paragraph if we adhere to NPOV I oppose adding it.--MONGO (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"He did reject that eventually" - yeah, I think the key word there is "eventually". And it's not really true. He "rejected it" the same way he weasels all his controversial statements. He makes them. He gets criticized for it. He then claims "of course I didn't actually mean it". He then goes back and says the same damn thing again [3]. He basically makes one statement for his critics and one statement for his base and hopes no one notices. And indeed, the base "knows what he really means", so they cool with it (you see this on Wikipedia among other places) and most of the mainstream press is dumb enough to run with "oh, look, he's becoming better!" wishful thinking spineless we-still-need-access-to-the-white-house narrative.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, please don't do the same thing that MONGO, above, was already doing. Stick to a discussion of facts and sources. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Not notable enough for the lead. The section in the body mentioning it is enough. PackMecEng (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Scjessey - I also don't recall it ever being in the lede, but "Few would argue Trump would not be president, were it not for his leading role in birtherism"... User:MONGO understated how far out that is -- mainstream explanations run to he tapped a well of disaffected & neglected folks, Hillary had some missteps or wasn't that great a choice, side blaming of Comey, and that the United States just has a history of wanting to change parties/themes after a while. Far from 'few would argue against', more like 'few would argue for'. It's been mentioned as just 6 weeks in 2011 that he avoids ever since, and gotten a place in the article but is just not a major part of his activities or life even during those 6 weeks, and not a significant effect on his life. Not WP:LEAD material. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Not lede-worthy, unless we want to turn this short biography into a laundry list of everything controversial Trump ever said. — JFG ^talk 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Strawman. No one's proposing turning this NON-SHORT biography into any kind of a laundry list. The proposal is just to add ONE controversial thing that Trump, not just SAID, but repeatedly pushed over and over and over again, which propelled him into the political spotlight. Try again with a better, more relevant argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, his other activities had nothing to do with him becoming well known/political since this "propelled him into the political spotlight".--MONGO (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, his other activities, like calling Mexicans rapists or talking about grabbin' "pussy" or mocking the disabled after a disabled reported called him out on lying about Muslims. Yes, there were also other activities which propelled him into the political spotlight. And yes, these should be in the article (though perhaps not the lede) as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Try again with established sources stating that Trump's support of birtherism in 2011 was a key factor in his electoral win in 2016. — JFG ^talk 13:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You're doing it again. Making up false strawman and falsely pretending that others said what they didn't say. Nobody here said that birtherism "was a key factor in his electoral win". What I and a few others have said is that it was a key factor in his rise to political prominence. It was the grease on which he got going. The kindling. What caused him to win is another matter. So yeah, if you want to have an honest discussion about this topic and why it's notable, stop making shit up about what people didn't actually say. Moving the goal posts, building up strawman and all that. Address the actual statement being made, not some figment of your imagination.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Nobody denies that birtherism was part of Trump's political rise, along with a dozen other factors. This fact would only be lede-worthy if it was a key element of his life, e.g. if it played a strong role in his winning the election. That's the difference between due and undue for the lede section of a biography. This is why we mention his "controversial and false" statements in the lede, but not his nickname attacks on political opponents. — JFG ^talk 09:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

There was a lot of things which played role in his winning the election. Electoral college. Russia. FBI. But it all had to start somewhere and this is where it started and that's why it's significant. You don't look at just the last few seconds of a race. You look at what happened at the starting line too. And sometimes that's more important and telling, as it is here. Trump would have never become viable among Republicans if it wasn't for race related issues like Birtherism and Mexican-immigrants-are-rapists-claims. And those stuck with his base. Yeah, later on "moderate" Republicans came up with a whole bunch of cognitive-dissonance-bullshit-self-delusion excuses to back him despite the nasty things he's said and done and vote for him anyway, but that was all later. It started with race. And that fact is telling. Again this is sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Trump would have never become viable among Republicans if it wasn't for race related issues. I guess you are entitled to your opinion. Facts disagree. Most Republicans were condemning Trump's provocative "Muslim ban" and "build the Wall" ideas, and that is surely not what made him viable to the GOP. He literally hijacked the party with his own program, and the base chose him rather than Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. — JFG ^talk 17:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, except it ain't my opinion, it's from the sources already presented. Stop it with pretending falsely otherwise. Facts don't disagree. So what if "most Republicans" made some half-assed spineless weaselly "oh gee, that's sort of bad" comments about the nastiest parts of the agenda? Still voted for him. I also don't get what your point is in the last sentence - yes, exactly, the base chose him. Why did they choose him? Birtherism and comments about immigrants. So you're actually contradicting your own argument here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we agree on most of the analysis, and we diverge on this part: Why did they choose him? Birtherism and comments about immigrants. They chose him for dozens of reasons, and birtherism is way down the list. Revive industrial jobs, enforce law and order, control immigration, drain the swamp, build the wall, tired of RINOs, never Hillary, support the military, make China pay, get along with Russia, reform NATO, be proud of our country, MAGA. The memories of birtherism were rather an embarrassing detail that he tried to avoid during the campaign. As with everything embarrassing, he weaseled out of it, but that convinced exactly nobody. Remember his press conference when he made reporters listen to 30 minutes of blather about veterans and advertisement for his new hotel before admitting that Obama was born in the U.S.?[4] That was such a troll move, all commenters were disgusted. — JFG ^talk 05:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs to be in there. It's a no-brainer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't belong in there. It's a no-brainer. (see how this works?) — JFG ^talk 13:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"That's how he started his career in politics prior to his 2016 run" Already covered. Also, sources. Ooodddddllllleeesssss of them. Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Strange. I thought he "started his career in politics" by purchasing full-page ads about foreign policy in 1987. Or by running for president in 2000. Or by becoming a TV celebrity. Or by bemoaning the Iraq War. Or by tweeting all day. — JFG ^talk 14:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but he didn't get any traction until he started pushing the Birther conspiracy. That and his comments about Mexicans being rapists are two things that resonated with the people who became his supporters and what made him viable as a candidate in the GOP. Oh look! Both these things are related to... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... race!

I get it. The gate keepers intend on using the "consensus required" DS provision to keep out ANYTHING that might reflect negatively on Trump, no matter how notable it is, how widely covered it is and of how much lasting importance. Only a washed and cleansed, squeaky clean image of Trump is allowed. Even if these things that reflect negatively on him are things he did, things he stands by, things he is proud of, and which are the exact things that make him popular among his supporters. This makes the article POV and constitutes WP:GAMEing (granted, the ridiculous restriction is so dumb that it practically begs for this kind of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: “he didn't get any traction until he started pushing the Birther conspiracy“ – that's your OR. In fact, this stance cut both ways; only Trump thinks it helped him at the polls. Re: "what made him viable as a candidate in the GOP" – LOL, I'm old enough to remember when Trump was a laughable candidate, totally mocked as a clown by everybody and their dog. The whole Never Trump GOP crowd rejected him. For the rest, please avoid aspersions on the motives of your fellow editors. You know better than stoop that low. — JFG ^talk 14:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Not OR. Here you go, four historians: "Bill Moyers and four historians dissect the big lie Trump rode to power: the Birther lie. ". I mean, what else turned him from a "laughable candidate" (which he was at one point) into a viable one? It was either the Birther thing, or the "Mexicans are rapists" thing. Everything else (drain the swamp, lock her up, asking Russia to hack the election) came later, once he was already the top contender in the GOP field (I assume you're being sarcastic with the "old enough to remember" quip, since that was, like two years ago). And I note you haven't answered the question - if it wasn't that that made him viable, what was it?

And I'm not casting aspersions on anyone's motivates. I'm describing observable behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

So, according to your theory, Trump was a laughable candidate from his June 2015 announcement all the way until Super Tuesday in March 2016, but he suddenly became credible and won the nomination because he had peddled birtherism in 2011? Makes absolutely no sense, unless he played a Marty McFly on us all.

Actually, I remember he peddled birtherism on his "Canadian" opponent Ted Cruz. <sarc> Surely that was racist too? </sarc> — JFG ^talk 16:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

On top of that, out of respect for your sources, I just wasted 23 minutes of my life listening to the Bill Moyers video you cited. None of the interviewees state that birtherism was the reason Trump won. They vaguely assert that the United States are a racist country, that a black president must be illegitimate due to some caricature from the 1870s, and that Trump is racist because he promoted "law and order", which automatically means blaming "black and brown crime". Let's call it opinion; Trump is indeed a sort of Rorschach test. — JFG ^talk 16:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"So, according to your theory,{{<}}here I will insert a whole bunch of stuff Volunteer Marek didn't say then pretend he said it>" - no. Why are you calling it "my theory", when it's something which is actually said by sources, mischaracterizing it, and why are you putting words in my mouth? So according to your theory JFG, Trump was a powerful political force due to his honesty, integrity, statesmanship, his compassion and embrace of all Americans? Makes absolutely no sense! Or wait, JFG, according to your theory, Trump became a powerful political force because Hillary Clinton was actually an alien disguised as a human and Trump exposed her? Why you talking crazy JFG? Hey JFG, according to your theory, the DNC ran a secret child trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor and Trump bravely and highhandedly fought them using 5 dimensional kung fu and so won the presidency? That's just your original research JFG!!!

Hey I know! Maybe if you tried actually addressing what someone said - that birtherism and comments about Mexican immigrants being rapists - played a key role in his rise to prominence, then we could take you seriously? It's easy to defeat strawmen bud.

(and regarding your B2TF reference, for it to work he would have had to peddle birtherism AFTER not BEFORE. Thus. Making. Time Travel. Necessary. See how an analogy works?)Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

These escalating strawmen are very funny and helpfully distracting from what you actually wrote: I mean, what else turned him from a "laughable candidate" (which he was at one point) into a viable one? It was either the Birther thing, or the "Mexicans are rapists" thing. I retorted that your words imply that Trump turned from laughable to credible sometime between his announcement in June 2015 and his winning Super Tuesday in March 2016 thanks to birtherism that he had peddled for six weeks (says The New York Times) back in 2011. Did that anecdote make primary voters, and then general voters, check the box near his name? If anything, those remarks alienated him to a large segment of voters; the surprising thing is that birtherism didn't prevent him from winning. Several analyses have shown that a bunch of people who had twice voted for Obama switched to Trump in key "Blue Wall" states. Were they suddenly convinced by Trump's birtherism 5 years later, or were they just disappointed by the lack of "hope and change" they had been promised? Or did they just pick the "lesser of two evils"? Or did Trump's own message of hope and change sway them? Or did they just love the entertainment value of a "tweeting madman" in the White House? Nobody knows, and none of this is lede-worthy. — JFG ^talk 08:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Except for that one thing, that that is not what I actually wrote. I didn't say anything about 2011. I didn't say anything about Super Tuesday. He didn't peddle it for "six weeks" (I don't even know what point you're trying to make). It was not an "anecdote", it was actually something that - again, not according to me, but to sources - resonated with what became his base (as did "lock her up" and "Mexican immigrants are rapists").

And what are these "several analyses" you're referring to? For someone who keeps demanding sources even after they've been provided with them, you sure fail to provide any yourself. There was NO "bunch of people who had twice voted for Obama switched to Trump". There as some 9% of Obama voters who might have done that (and where they did is irrelevant to this discussion). That's about normal for a normal election. Maybe even lower. There's always some % of the electorate that's wishy washy. So this is yet another red-herring (not to mention wrong). How about the other 91% of Obama voters who didn't switch? You're basically making the electoral version of the "some of my best friends are black" argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You're making my case: the 9% who switched were enough to sway a couple states where Hillary didn't even bother to campaign. — JFG ^talk 05:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I like the title of that piece...it leaves no easter eggs about it.--MONGO (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I still don't see how his birther comments can be condensed enough in the lede to satisfy NPOV and UNDUE.--MONGO (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

What's there to condense? A single sentence about Trump pushing birtherism is all that's needed. And it seems you regard ANY mention of birtherism in the lede as "NPOV", so why are you pretending that your concern is about "condensing it enough"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User:JFG or his political start as part of getting real estate approvals, see ballotpedia History of Donald Trump’s political donations. And his 2012 CPAC speech is mentioned as when he got involved with actual politics with some success. The one month of silly birther stuff he’s been avoiding talking about ever since just got him ridiculed ... literally, see NYT 2016 article on ‘run began in an effort to gain stature’ relating how at the April 2011 White House correspondents dinner he sat thru Obama ridiculing him in front of all the press. It might be more notable as a POV attack at this point than any other aspect, but trivia ridiculed over would seem by repeating an attack somewhat contrary to BLP. Definitely not BLP significant event though, nor qualify as WP:LEAD level comparable to how often ‘false’ or ‘controversial’ is said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Leave it out of the lead. Not lead worthy for a BLP that spans 72 years; would constitute WP:UNDUE. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd say leave it out of the lead. It seems like undue there but if neutrally presented I could be happy with its inclusion, a small comment only and a link to the detail in the aticle. I don't support any inclusion in the lede that his support for birtherism ~~or mexican rapists were~~ was a key factor in his electoral win in 2016 Govindaharihari (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, let's hope he didn't actually support Mexican rapists. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I have at no point argued for the inclusion of any text that says birtherism was a key factor behind his 2016 win. And I think the discussions above along those lines are not helpful and are borderline WP:NOTFORUM discussions that will go nowhere. All I've argued for is that the lede should note that Trump gained notoriety over his promotion of Barack Obama birther conspiracy theories and possibly that this was what he was notorious for in politics before he started his 2016 campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the first part of your comment but not that that the lede should note that Trump gained notoriety over his promotion of Barack Obama birther conspiracy theories, that possition is imo undue in the lede. Trump gained notoriety , he has been notorious all his life. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's maybe worded a bit clunkily. 'Stirred controversy' perhaps rather than 'gained notoriety'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And just to be even more clear, this entire thread has been turned into a partisan shit show by people with deeply entrenched positions. I'm seriously fed up with this bullshit. The original question was valid. There are plenty of sources that say Trump's embrace of birtherism was key to establishing a base with which to launch a campaign. The argument it isn't biographically relevant is staggeringly bizarre, given that the result of his birtherism was the presidency, which everyone agrees is his most significant biographical achievement. I mean, come on. The twisted logic some of you employ just defies explanation. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

given that the result of his birtherism was the presidency - sorry matie, that is a step too far position. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

What does sound like "twisted logic" is the assertion that birtherism made Trump president. @Volunteer Marek and Scjessey: I'd love to see some of the "ooodddddllllleeesssss of sources" making that claim. Please help me out. — JFG ^talk 17:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Already provided one above. Drmies provided another. Here is another (" Trump's favorite line of attack that contributed heavily to his rise in America's political conscience — birtherism."). Here is another (a Republican saying it!). And here's another [5].

Basically any source which discusses how Trump rose to be the #1 candidate in a crowded GOP field mentions 1) birtherism and 2) comments about Mexican immigrants. THAT is what he ran on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If the lede can include highlights of his presidency like the embassy move to Jerusalem, why wouldn't this one thing, which no one can deny is important (whether he took it back or not), be in the lead? The whole "this is part of the presidency article" is undercut by an entire paragraph in the lead, "During Trump’s presidency,...". It's still a big thing in the media (I know, the losing lying fake news media), in recent articles like here and here, "The movement, if you care to dignify it by calling it one, is Birtherism 2.0". And here is an academic, peer-reviewed bit, "The accumulated effect of the constant bombardment of simplistic, emotional, symbolic, stereotypical propaganda results not just in the development of apparatuses of propaganda but also in altered public expectations. Many members of the public were ready and willing to be lead through Trump's media antics, such as his birtherism, name-calling, self-aggrandizement, and many bigoted and sexist remarks", Wimberly, Cory (2018). "Trump, Propaganda, and the Politics of Ressentiment". Journal of Speculative Philosophy. 32 (1): 179–199.. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I can deny it is important. I remember the issue of him and the birther thing but I don't think I thought about it for one second while he was running for President. All I thought about was: These...are our two choices...followed by OMG.--MONGO (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@MONGO: Yeah, the choice was between an adulterous, narcissistic reality TV "star" who experienced multiple bankruptcies, with a reputation for racism, a penchant for gauche decor, and an astonishing economy with the truth, OR, a respected former Secretary of State with a near impeccable record as a New York senator, notable for championing women and trying to get poor people healthcare, who also happened to be the victim of adultery and somehow got blamed for it. It's no wonder most people voted for the latter. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
ow dear, sorry Scjessey, this discussion is clearly very emotional for some, we have to stay uninvolved. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I nearly spit out my coffee reading that. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I’m not sure I understand the resistance. Trump started pushing this is 2011. He claimed “an ‘extremely credible source’” had called his office to inform him that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate was “a fraud.” He claimed Joe Arpaio had evidence, and years later pardoned him. He is more the face of this conspiracy theory than that nutty woman called the Queen of birtherism who’s name I can’t even remember. [6] [7] O3000 (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
While the intro should be a soundbite of the article body, still can't see why this should be in the introduction. Maybe on the Presidency article perhaps, but not sure even there. Perhaps you mean this person?--MONGO (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

His career is now politician, and that will likely be the focus of his life in the future, whether or not he likes it. So, when did it start? If not with birtherism, the only other early political entry I can see in RS is his extravagant purchase of ads calling for the death of black teens for a crime for which they have now been exonerated, and his claims after they were shown innocent that they were still guilty. My point is that the entry of a president into the political arena should be a major part of their bio. The preponderance of RS suggest birtherism is way up there. O3000 (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Birtherism isn't what transformed Trump from a laughable into a viable candidate but what made him a laughable candidate in the first place, literally, see the Washington Press dinner. I suppose that is why his opponents keep mentioning it. I wouldn't object to mentioning it, since it was one of the main things keeping him in the news during the Obama presidency. But any expansion of the subject does not belong in the lead. Scjessey, since Adlai Stevenson, the Dems have nominated lots of highly qualified people and they all lost too. Voters like showmen. TFD (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You have a point. But, birtherism was behind why the Washington Press dinner stayed in the news. O3000 (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This is true. What is laughable to one person is god's truth to another. I mean, there's still people who fervently believe in pizzagate or whatever the wacky conspiracy theory d'jour is. Alex Jones being stalked by Diane Feinstein or whatever.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose This doesn't even have a remote chance of making it into the lead, but we should get our votes in just to make it official. Trump has plenty of opinions that are unpopular with liberal Democrats. If you try to smush em all into this article, you're just going to end up with pages and pages of bullet points instead of a biography. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE

So the idea that Barrack Obama was not born in the United States was just an "opinion unpopular with liberal Democrats". Got it. User:MONGO, User:JFG, User:PackMecEng, you wanna weight in on this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Depends on who you talk to. 20% of Democrats don't buy that Obama was born in the US, and only about 25% of Republicans think so. That's from 2016, when trust in the mainstream media was higher, maybe those numbers have changed.[8] But we're not here to debate that. If you want to weigh in with your opinion on the controversy, I'm sure you can find a forum for that. You reverted me when I added several polls showing that Fox News consistently ranks as one of the trusted media sources, and then someone else reverted me when I added content noting its unprecedented dominance in the ratings. Both facts are unquestionably lead-worthy, but were removed anyway. It's all about perspective. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Depends on who you talk to. Sorry but your comments show a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of facts. Facts are not determined by what people believe but exist independent from belief. Extremely few of those polled did their own research on the question—never mind the huge effect of political bias—so their opinions mean exactly nothing as to determination of fact. If 40% of Americans believe Obama was born outside the U.S., that doesn't translate to a 40% chance he was born outside the U.S. And the Earth wasn't flat 2,500 years ago. No, it's not all about perspective. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Again I'm not going to weigh in on the merits of one side or the other. There are plenty of forums for that. My oppose vote stands, and this section should be closed because the writing is on the wall: this has no business being in the lead. It should stay neutral of our opinions, no matter how strongly we agree or disagree with the poll respondents. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I don't see Jerry speculating that poll numbers should magically translate into probability of facts. He simply states that a significant portion of the U.S. public had doubts about Obama's birthplace, irrespective of their political alignments. We seem to have 20% of people sort-of-believing a 100% false story. That is a sad state of affairs for an educated country, but oh well, there are worse things to worry about. I bet 50% of the U.S. public still believes that Russia is a communist state, and couldn't tell the difference between communism and fascism. That is potentially dangerous. — JFG ^talk 09:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Jerry's response to So the idea that Barrack Obama was not born in the United States was just an "opinion unpopular with liberal Democrats". Got it. was Depends on who you talk to., followed by citation of poll numbers which have absolutely nothing to do with the fact of the matter. I think my interpretation was correct and I stand by my response. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

And I still want to know what User:JFG, User:MONGO and User:PacMecEng, who are not "liberal Democrats" best I can tell, think about the contention that the idea that Obama was born in the US is just something cooked up by "liberal Democrats" as Jerry insinuates. So how about guys? You agree with Jerry's statement? Or is this just a useful "oppose" vote, just like the votes of "certain kind" of Trump voters are "useful" to beating Democrats? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, the source Jerry provides is actually another source which mentions birthrism as playing a big role in Trump's political career. So what are we up to now? Half a dozen sources? Not that it will matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ha yeah I am probably not a liberal Democrat, closer to classic liberalism I guess? Eh but anyways. It is a notable conspiracy theory that was unpopular on both sides that Trump did push. That said I feel like it is in a decent place as is in the body, without mention in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The question isn't whether you can find enough sources that mention the fact that Trump is one of the 72% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats who aren't buying that Obama is a native US citizen. I'm sure you can find hundreds that talk about it. The question is whether it's noteworthy enough for the lead, and it isn't. Maybe you can make a case for this in his campaign article. Not in the article about his life. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the problem right here. You're just saying "I don't care how many sources you find, I won't allow it". If we do find lots of sources, it goes in. That's Wikipedia policy. You're basically saying you have no intention of following Wikipedia policy.

And your phrasing of the issue is noteworthy too - apparently the wackos who spread this nonsense, are just people who "don't buy" that Obama is a US citizen, as if that was something someone was selling or a lie being peddled. This is a prime example of an editor with extremist views, abetted by a couple others who maybe aren't as extreme but are happy to use him as a !vote (who still haven't responded to whether or not they agree with Jerry that it's "liberal Democrats" who consider Obama a US citizen), gleefully abusing the "consensus required" restriction, which really should be renamed "gaming and obstruction encouraged" restriction, because that's all it does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

And yet Barack Obama (rightly) doesn't mention the accusations that he was born in Kenya, despite having even more sources than the subset regarding Donald Trump's accusations to that effect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly Power. I don't see any policy that says "if you can find enough sources that say some shit, then it needs to get forced into the lead". And Volunteer - I think you were just recently told not to be uncivil about other editors, and weren't you told not to edit this page for like a week about a month ago or something? Or did you not hear that? My opinion on the whole "birther" controversy is going to stay on the forums, and yours should too. Please stop using these pages as a soapbox to criticize other editors, since it betrays the fact that you're clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather right great wrongs that you perceive have been perpetuated against Obama. This is turning into such a mess. Can we please close this? Obviously it's not going in the lead. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The policy is notability and WP:LEAD. If something is notable - covered extensively by sources, then it obviously belongs in the article and in the lede. And no, I was NOT "told not to edit this page for a like a week or something". And what IS is your opinion on the birther, ahem, "controversy"? I mean, aside from the idea that believing that Obama is a US citizen is just some crazy opinion held by "liberal Democrats"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Wrong article talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll make the comment about glass houses and stones so Marek doesn't have to; your attempts to shoehorn some positive content into the lead at Fox News look no better than Marek's take here. It's well-established that Fox News generally supports conservative causes and there's no need to include other information to try to "achieve balance", and it certainly shouldn't be there to promote the network. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about balance, and that's not positive content - it's factual. What are the two most notable things about a cable news channel? Right. Trust and ratings. Fox News is the most trusted, and the highest rated. It doesn't matter if that's positive or negative. It's just a fact. It's a non-starter to argue that 196 straight months as #1 is not notable for a cable channel's article, and same with the fact that Americans consistently trust Fox News over CNN and MSNBC, despite the loud barking of its detractors and interns writing for Vox. It leans conservative, which is represented in the lead that sounds like it was written by a writer from BuzzFeed or the Huffington Post. There's a very mild note about MSNBC being a left-wing advocacy group in its lead, and NOTHING about CNN essentially being the Democratic Party's communications shop. Not even a little "CNN leans left". Just...nothing. And nothing about how CNN regularly places outside the top 10 of cable networks in the ratings. And nothing in the New York Times article about using its official Twitter account to encourage its supporters to call up their senators and oppose tax cuts. So what are we really talking about when we're talking about balance? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I appear to have driven this discussion off-topic; I'll reply on your talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans - It's not in the lead because it does not suit WP:LEAD. It just was not a big part of his life or any part of his campaign, nor usually mentioned as where he 'got his start'. Folks just do not think much about April 2011. It's almost trivia. Saying it is the cause would be WP:OR -- and inserting it at lead would be WP:UNDUE prominence. I think it has been discussed previously, see the archives such as Archive 21 POV lead, and then didn not have it in LEAD. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It was a big part of his life (for 8 years almost!), it was a big part of his campaign and is very often mentioned as how he got his start.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see how it's more relevant than his accusations against the Central Park Five or his desiring to build a wall, both prominent events of a similar tone that aren't in the lead. Regarding the WP:OTHERTHINGS arguments regarding details of his presidency: I expect that half (or more) of those will be removed by the time his term is done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

That actually sounds like an argument for including something about his racial views in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It is somewhat odd that the word "immigration" isn't in the lead (though the fact that he hasn't actually done anything about immigration yet probably is the reason why). There are so many problems with a "Donald Trump doesn't care about black people" type sentence that I don't think we'll find consensus for anything in the lead along those lines. The travel ban is in the lead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It may soon be time to try again to summarize the Trump administration family separation policy for the lead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

And here is another source which also links birtherism to Trump's political rise [9]. Quote: "The reason is simple: Conservatives have been trained by the people they trust most to believe that everything is a conspiracy. And not just a conspiracy; a conspiracy against them. No one embodies that more than Trump himself, of course. He transformed himself from a celebrity into a political figure by becoming America's most prominent proponent of the racist "birther" theory that Barack Obama was not in fact born in America. No conspiracy theory seems too idiotic for Trump to at least consider" Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a side note here. Are we trying to use a local paper, the Stamford Advocate's opinion section to support the claim? PackMecEng (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Please actually read the source. It's Washington Post, reprinted by the Stamford Advocate (I didn't link to the WaPo version because it's behind a paywall).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That's how desperate it looks to go fishing for sources to support the ridiculous claim that birtherism actually helped get Trump elected. — JFG ^talk 17:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey User:JFG, before you make personal attacks calling other editors "desperate" and accuse them of "fishing for sources", you might want to... actually read the source posted. It's actually a Washington Post article. Which you would have known if you had bothered to read it, rather than spouting off wrongful and ignorant claims about other editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry VM, I did read it, but didn't notice the original was published in the WaPo. That's still an unusable opinion column, though. — JFG ^talk 05:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION says Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct with RSOPINION, but while we can certainly use opinion columns as RS for statements by the author. The opinion column or author's opinion needs to be notable first. PackMecEng (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion This thread is too tangled for an uninvolved closer to sort out, so here's a suggestion: If each of the editors in this long thread would go back and review their posts, striking any parts that are unsourced personal opinions, theories, and analysis -- i.e. original research -- it will be much easier evaluate the weight of the evidence and move on to other issues. So if each editor would take responsibility for keeping OR out of their own posts in this thread, an uninvolved closer can easily help us out. From what I can see, this is a relatively easy issue to decide, because it has been so widely discussed in mainstream sources. The usual "recentism" "notnews" and "undue" arguments fall flat in the face of cited RS coverage of the matter. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Not everything needs a close. This discussion certainly doesn't. When people want to make a follow-up proposal, they can. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Walk of Fame vandalism

Following the destruction of Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on July 25, Danlev added a sentence discussing the repeated vandalism.[10] The content was removed today by Galobtter [11] and restored by me[12] because I thought it had been discussed. Mandruss alerted my to my mistake and I have now self-reverted to open this discussion. In fact, a separate discussion was held at Talk:Protests against Donald Trump/Archive 4#Hollywood Walk of Fame, concluding that the repetition of incidents was notable enough for inclusion at the protests article. Now the question is whether it's notable enough for inclusion in this BLP. Opinions? — JFG ^talk 22:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Include per my edit summary: "One isolated incident would not be worth mentioning, but repeated destructions of Trump's star are notable." — JFG ^talk 22:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment - On one hand, it's pretty trivial, but on the other hand, a short sentence doesn't seem totally WP:UNDUE. If we do include it, we should omit the specific dates. Nobody's going to care about that detail in 10 years.- Mr X 🖋 22:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Right. I would rephrase thus: The star was repeatedly vandalized since Trump's election campaign, and it was twice completely destroyed and rebuilt. — JFG ^talk 23:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose including anything about this incident - and I say that as someone who has been working on adding it to the Protests against Donald Trump and Hollywood Walk of Fame articles. We already have a subsection and a couple of paragraphs about protests against him, that's enough. We don't need to detail every one. TMI for a biography. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
IncludeOf course, especially since its happened twice now and a brawl went on there the other day too.--MONGO (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - There's no way this bit of one-day trivia is getting in. Nobody cares. And seriously, we're debating having this while at the same time fielding calls to remove the section on Trump's penchant for ~~Nazis~~ very fine people? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Exclude - not Biographical kind of material, not significant action by him or making big difference to his life. It might be appropriate for the article on protests against Donald Trump but WP:OFFTOPIC for here. Markbassett (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Possibly include May be more appropriate for Trump Derangement Syndrome to more fully flesh out a profile of TDS-sufferers and what they're willing to do to vent their angst. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
Oppose - Incredibly trivial. The same editors who vociferously opposed the inclusion of content about his administration's policy of separating some 3000 children from their parents now feel that vandalism of his Walk of Fame star merits inclusion? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't here for that debate but since this is an article about the man, not his presidency, it would make sense not to include the controversy over enforcing federal law at the southern border. The illegal immigration section is a perfect spot for all that noise in Presidency of Donald Trump. The man's Walk of Fame star vandalism incidents make sense to be included in his article. Where else would it go? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about the man, not his Walk of Fame star. Powerful argument. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Wrong article talk page ~Awilley (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Right on second thought, this is definitely meant for the Trump Derangement Syndrome article. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there a Reliable Source relating this incident to Trump Derangement Syndrome? If not, it can't go there just because you think (WP:OR) that any strong action to protest Trump amounts to TDS. The Walk of Fame Star incident is already in Protests against Donald Trump and Hollywood Walk of Fame. Those are the only articles where it belongs. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"Strong action"? Resorting to criminal mischief is a bit more than just strong action. Political Insider reports the liberal was indeed afflicted with TDS.[13] The Hayride described the criminal's TDS as "terminal".[14] The #2 cable host in the country also linked the crime to TDS.[15] I'm not wedded to the inclusion there, but it's a better spot for it than here, that's for sure. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you please stop referring to individuals, including your fellow Wikipedia editors, with terms such as "the liberal"? It sort of betrays your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Also thepoliticalinsider is nowhere near being a reliable source. It's basically garbage. I haven't even heard of thehayride before, but it's apparently some nutzoid blog which spreads conspiracy theories and 4chan rumors. So even a bigger pile of garbage. I think you've basically just made the case against yourself here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The sources call the criminal a "liberal". I don't know why you think being called a liberal is an insult. There's nothing wrong with being a lib. I'm uncomfortable with your attacks on the media though, because a free and fair press is so important, and dismissing the fourth estate as "nutzoid" is a chilling assault on journalism. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've just wiped the coffee off my keyboard after this hilarious comment. The Political Insider is not "the media" in any recognizable sense of the word. It is an extreme right wing site that peddles bullshit to poorly-educated mouth breathers and innocent people who have been led astray by the right wing media echo chamber. I'm particularly amused by your defense of a free and fair press, since you evidently have a problem identifying such entities. Thank you for making me laugh today! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Exclude - too trivial and undue for this general of an article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Exclude. Trivial relative to his overall biography. Even if he were just a movie star, it would probably still be too trivial to include; for the POTUS it's silly to suggest it deserves space here. --Aquillion (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Exclude trivial here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Update – Should we revisit this discussion now that the city of Hollywood has voted to remove Trump's star, likely in response to repeated vandalism, and to make a political statement? — JFG ^talk 06:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead include the fact that Trump enacted, and later reversed, an immigration enforcement policy that forcibly separated children from parents?

I believe there is consensus against the original wording proposed by MrX.

The votes, by my count, came to 18 in favor of inclusion, with a few of those expressing support for revisions by Scjessey or Icewiz, vs. 20 opposed. A common Oppose argument, and probably the strongest in my opinion, was that the proposed sentence was UNDUE for the lead or that it didn't have enough lasting significance. Others respondents had concerns about specific issues with the proposed wording (using word "forcibly", "policy", "enacted", and "reversed"). The "Recentism" argument (used by at least 3 voters) didn't carry as much weight with me as it would have a month ago. On the Support side the most convincing argument for me was that the family separations were notable enough for the Lead because of widespread, continuous and lasting coverage. I think Gandydancer made that argument best. There was also the argument that this was more significant than other items currently included in the Lead (recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, partial repeal of Dodd-Frank act) which also made sense to me.

Finally, I think it is quite possible that there could be consensus for something similar to Scjessey's proposed partial sentence, based on people's objections to specific language ("forcibly") in the origianl proposal and at least 3 opposers saying they would support a better wording if it were found. I don't think there's enough evidence from the responses to this RfC to say whether or not Scjessey's had consensus, so I won't make a ruling on that here. ~Awilley (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Should the lead include the following sentence?

He enacted, and later reversed, an immigration enforcement policy that forcibly separated children from parents.

- Mr X 🖋 11:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes - Trump's family separation policy is still receiving a enormous amount of international coverage in the news[16] nearly three months after Trump enacted it. In fact, it is so significant that we now have several related well-sourced articles about it: Protests against Trump administration family separation policy, Protests against Trump administration family separation policy, Abolish ICE, Women Disobey, and John Moore photograph of Honduran child. By comparison, the lead of this article contains facts that our collective sources consider far less important like " He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.", "He owned the Miss Universe and Miss USA beauty pageants from 1996 to 2011", "According to March 2018 estimates by Forbes, he is the world's 766th richest person", and " He enacted a partial repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act that had imposed stricter constraints on banks in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. In foreign policy". WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD strongly advise to include significant points in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. This certainly qualifies. - Mr X 🖋 11:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
No per many, many reasons, mainly UNDUE. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I would tweak the language to He enacted, and later reversed, an immigration enforcement policy that forcibly separated immigrant children from their parents. Looking at the list of policies from the current term presently in the lede - this policy while not the most noteworthy - does surpass other listed policies in terms of coverage. It might not "make the lede" 2-6 years from now (depending on whatever else is done in office, brevity might require lede removal) - but in terms of present presidential accomplishments - yes - it is lede worthy.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Seems obvious. The coverage in RS was massive; and coverage continues despite the Thai cave thingy, another story about children. Certainly seems due a sentence. O3000 (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
No Especially the POV way purposed. Undue and violates NPOV. PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Sort of - I've been thinking about this a lot, and I believe there needs to be a reworking and expansion of an existing sentence instead. All of Trump's immigration policies are related to his desire to restrict the flow of immigrants into the US and (arguably) increase border security. Some would argue that this is Trump signature policy. The lede should reflect that, but it must necessarily add some stuff and remove some of the detail. Consider the following:

During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after several legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision.

I would change this to something like:

During his presidency, Trump pushed for a series of immigration policies designed to heighten border security and restrict the flow of immigrants into the country. He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, called for the construction of a wall along the Mexico–United States border, and enacted an immigration enforcement policy that forcibly separated children from parents, that he later reversed.

I realize this reopens the previous discussion about the travel ban, but I can't see any other way around it that makes sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes because this is one of the most important controversies the subject of the page is mostly known for. I would also support the rephrase by Icewhiz and the version by Scjessey above. My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
No – A regrettable policy blunder, yet with no lasting significance. — JFG ^talk 14:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Not opposed to a summary of Trump's immigration policy instead, per Scjessey, but it will be very hard to make this short and neutral enough for the lede. — JFG ^talk 14:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This is part of an ongoing, resolute pursuit of racial and ethnic themes by Trump and his Administration. No reason to keep it too short. It's one of his 2-3 core issues. The ongoing RS narrative belies any claim the President, Atty. General, Homeland Security, and other Administration departments and officials "blundered" when they adopted an extreme policy shift and public presentation replete with accusations and aspersions, elaborate justifications, and media pandering. If you have RS that call this a "blunder" -- which would itself be an historic level of incompetent error on a par with Cheney/Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy -- please cite your sources for editors to consider here. Today we have more confirmation -- BREAKING: Trump administration says it won’t meet Tuesday deadline to reunite children separated from parents at U.S.-Mexico border -- that this humanitarian disaster is no mere "blunder". This should not be characterized as such without RS citations that credibly call this an inadvertent "blunder". If there are RS that call this a "blunder" these need to be brought to the discussion and evaluated. Otherwise, we should not waste any more time equivocating about the willful actions that have gotten worldwide condemnation. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

No The guideline for what should be in the lead of a BLP is MOS:LEADBIO not the number of articles that are responses to it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
On Fence Not sure one way or other about this in lede. I would say most definitely in the Presidency article but here not sure. I lean to

No. Definitely something of a major policy blunder, ill thought out and implemented, but its an issue of his Presidency not so much Trump as the person himself.--MONGO (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

But it's Trump's major policy blunder (and so much more). He is the embodiment of the presidency. He is the only person endowed with the enforcement authority of his office. Wouldn't your same argument apply to all of his policies that we so prominently list in the lead? What's different here?- Mr X 🖋 18:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I think a lot of the info in the lead belongs in the presidency article, not his bio. But on this Rfc this is the issue we are discussing. We can discuss the rest of it of course on other Rfc's etc.--MONGO (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Preferably as part of two concise sentences which summarize the most significant policies and proposals of Trump on immigration: the border wall, the Muslim ban and the family separations. The family separation policy is something that leaves a lasting mark on Trump, Nielsen and the administration officials who helped to implement it and spread falsehoods about what they were doing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, per WP:DUE, as clearly not one-off event, but largely animated by Trump's prior and consistent anti-immigrant positions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Lean yes. I would say this probably WP:DUE enough for the lead, but the margins are not huge. I strongly disagree with the opinion expressed above by JFG that this is a topic of transient importance; it isn't mere WP:CRYSTAL speculation to say this is definitely a topic of lasting implications and massive scope. But there are lots of topics of lasting implication and massive scope in the lead, by necessity, so that's the real question: WP:WEIGHT. Personally, given the need for economy here, and the additional editorial priorities of encyclopedic context and efficient flow, I would normally wonder if it was better off attached as a clause to broader sentence addressing similar topics, but there's really only one sentence touching upon immigration and due process of law topics, and it is an ill fit for a grafting. But even if it is a little stumpy for a stand-alone sentence, I think this topic probably qualifies for a "Top 10 of his most controversial policies/courses of action as president" for lack of better phrasing and therefore is due for inclusion in the lead. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen that Scjessey had already tread similar ground before me in their comments. I can definitely get behind their proposed version: it combines the most reasonable reading of the three most important policies regarding immigration (and the related topics of operation of law with regard to due process and human rights), which subject matter relates to a major part of his express platform--something he (and the world broadly) sees as a defining trait of his presidency and a source of clout with a substantial majority of his advocates. And both the framing and the individual episodes are expressed in bare bones fashion. It works for me. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but scjessey could I perhaps suggest a slight tweak in replacing "pushed for" with "effectuated or advocated for" or something similar that is a bit more precise as to the exercise of the powers of his office and political influence? Snow ^{let's rap} 08:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Absolutely. My suggested text was intended as a first draft jumping off point that I would expect others to help me refine. "Advocated for" sounds good, although reliable sources would even support something as strong as "demanded" when it comes to the wall. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because the event received overwhelming and sustained media coverage. Kerberous (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I'm going to add this quote from the judge that is now hearing a class action filed by the ACLU: "The news media is saturated with stories of immigrant families being separated at the border. People are protesting. Elected officials are weighing in. Congress is threatening action. Seventeen states have now filed a complaint against the Federal Government challenging the family separation practice."[17] Here at Wikipedia we are not experts on anything. We rely on real experts, federal judges for example, to direct our edits and their importance. Here we see exactly how to treat this issue and it clearly belongs in the lead. Keep in mind that years down the road it may be removed from the lead since nothing in WP is carved in stone - but certainly at the present time it belongs in the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The source you propose to cite was published on June 26, as the crisis was unfolding. One week later, it was over. Soon, all that will remain is memories of the legitimate outrage at this temporary situation. Therefore, UNDUE. — JFG ^talk 16:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

RS do not report this is "over". See [18] First, it's UNDUE to call it a "crisis" or "blunder" when it is the ongoing enactment of a considered and calculated policy -- and described as such by the Administration. This has been amply documented on this page. Please review all the discussion. Second, the Administration has now missed the court-mandated deadline for reuniting the children with their parents and RS report that there was no plan or capability to ensure such reunification, despite Administration statements to the contrary. There have been hundreds of demonstrations nationwide, dozens of congressional and gubernatorial visits to the border facilities, and other indicia of significance that warrent detailed article text about these ongoing abuses as another step in the Trump's demonization of Hispanics as criminals, subhumans, and dangerous intruders. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Over? Well that is a totally stunning assessment, to say the least. I did not use the June remarks because they were the most significant or the last remarks we shall hear. They just happen to give a good summary. Gandydancer (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about other editors; appears to have run its course. MelanieN alt (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@JFG: To say the matter is "over" is hilarious. It's still getting wall-to-wall coverage on cable news and print media. Recent court action has given the administration more time to reunite the children that Trump's jackbooted thugs stole from their parents, but a separate ruling has denied the administration an extension to how long the united families can be kept in detention. We're therefore on a collision course to a situation where the administration must release the families from detention, irrespective of their status. When that starts happening, you know the likes of SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer Miller are going to scream blue murder and get Trump to rally his deplorables. At the same time, there's a growing chorus calling for the abolition of ICE (the aforementioned jackbooted thugs) for their heavy-handed tactics. It seems incredible that this won't be a thing right the way through the mid-terms. I know this all sounds a bit too CRYSTAL BALL-Y, but any fool can read these tea leaves. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think JFG has thoroughly disqualified himself from this discussion (as are others who ludicrously say that this material is undue). Let's stick with verifiable facts folks, like the fact that this was first reported in April (evidence of which I previously provided on this page) and the fact that the coverage is sustained, significant, and international in extent.- Mr X 🖋 17:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No, JFG has not "disqualified" themselves from anything merely by having an interpretation of the sources and policies that varies wildly from your own. That's clearly patent nonsense with regard to every policy on point with regard to how we form WP:CONSENSUS on this project, and would still be a ridiculous assertion even if they were the only party advocating for that view (and they aren't). Unpopular opinions are not just protected in discussion here, they are encouraged--provided that they are good-faith, based in a WP:HERE approach and not otherwise disruptive (for example, litigating the issues obnoxiously immediately after a consensus has been reached). All of those requirements are met by JFG's contributions here as far as I can see. Now, I happen to agree that JFG's take on the editorial issue here is very much flawed (per my comments above), but the way to counter them is with better policy and sourcing arguments, not trying to get the opposition's perspective branded as "disqualified"--especially when it involves the most blatant utilization of begging the question that I have personally seen on the project in a while.

Indeed, more generally speaking I think a number of others here (pro- and anti-Trump) really need to tone down the hyperbole in your discussion here by...oh, about eighty notches? The drumbeat of reference to major Nazi war criminals is not helping to achieve clarity and you should trust me that it only undermines your arguments, rather than augmenting them. It's ok to have a perspective about the conduct of these public figures which some people might describe as a "bias"; these policies have a moral dimension that cannot be ignored and tend to raise emotion. What is not appropriate is vocally pushing those perspectives in this space, when they are not a part of discussion of what the sources say on the issues in question and how to construct our content in accordance. More so than that, it is counterproductive to your goals, since those arriving via the RfC will take one look at that kind of soapboxing and become highly prejudiced towards viewing your editorial arguments through a filter that takes into account your clearly expressed bias; which means you stand less of a solid chance of winning a consensus consistent with your views, even if you absolutely nail the policy and sourcing arguments.

Honestly, the behaviour here on this talk page from both "sides" of the pro and anti Trump divide is so often so out of control, that I am beginning to wonder if we need to set a limit on the number of comments that an editor can make to this talk page in a given span of time, since a very large number of contributors have set up permanent camp here and go from zero-to-"Nazi"/"Libtard" instantly in every single thread. That type of thing is in full swing literally every time I arrive here after receiving a bot notice--which happens about a dozen times per year right now. We don't need ideologues here, we need editors who can set aside their personal feelings on these matters (at least temporarily) to analyze the issues dispassionately with regard to the sources and our policies. I know that's not always where children and morally questionable acts are concerned, but that's all the more reason to self-assess and consider when you need to take a break from the page. With respect to Scjessey, whom I like and who I think has pointed us towards the appropriate resolution to the editorial issue here with their proposed wording, that point at which temporary disengagement is advisable has almost certainly been crossed any time a Himmler reference escapes your keyboard and you aren't working on an article about historical German Nazis. And I would suggest it is also true whenever you begin to find yourself proposing non-WP:disruptive opinions be considered "disqualified"; at that point, you are running the risk of becoming close-minded and the type of editor who is inclined towards echo chambers and confirmation bias. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly. JFG made a claim that is demonstrably false. Claiming that the immigration crisis is "over" is not a reasonable interpretation of sources or policy or reality. Such blatantly fallacious arguments need to be called out lest we slip into a post truth abyss where anyone can contradict readily observable facts and create an alternate history. I don't know if JFG did that intentionally, or if his comment was just unclear as to his intended meaning, but the result is the same. Likewise, editors claiming that this material is undue, while not bothering to address the torrent of sources that are covering this each and every day, show either a profound ignorance of policy or a deliberate attempt to subvert it. Good faith is not carte blanche. Good faith is earned by making honest, intelligent arguments backed by evidence.- Mr X 🖋 23:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if I agreed with your rather extremist/my side view of what is a "reasonable" interpretation of the sources here, none of the above would make it logical, advisable, or consistent with our policies for you to try to brand an editor as "disqualified" from contributing to consensus simply because they have a viewpoint that is greatly divergent from the one you earnestly hold yourself. Personally, I think your view of whether the matter is WP:DUE for inclusion here is just as inaccurate a reading of WP:WEIGHT in its own way as JFG's. I have supported inclusion here after careful contemplation, but given the number of topics of massive scope and importance which might be added to this particular BLP's lead, nothing gets a free pass as to WP:DUE inclusion in that limited space. If Trump set fire to the Queen's hair in his state visit this week, then threatened military action to get out of the room, I still wouldn't disregard, out of hand, the perspective of those who didn't think it was worthy of inclusion in the lead. The man is just too much of a lightning rod for controversial acts and policies, so everything has to be weighed relative to the scope of his other official acts and public statements, which regularly impact the lives of countless people on planet Earth in unexpected and expansive ways. I believe that the separation policy qualifies as WP:DUE for inclusion in the lead. But I am much more firmly convinced that if you genuinely believe this is a WP:SNOW issue upon which reasonable editors (and reasonable people broadly) cannot disagree, you are out of touch with both policy and perspective. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The only "side" that I care about is verifiability and treatment of a subject in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. When I wrote that JFG has thoroughly disqualified himself from this discussion, I was obviously making a rhetorical point to highlight how unreasonable I think his position is. - Mr X 🖋 01:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't "obvious" to me, but I'm glad you cleared it up before I posted my scathing response. I hope you'll be more careful with the rhetoric. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can understand that; I sometimes try to convey a similar sentiment. But I think there are better ways of emphasizing that you think someone is out in the hills without a torch than to use language implying their opinion should be excluded. In addition to the effect it can have upon discussion, I honestly think it hyperbolic in this context. I happen to agree with you (if my previous comment in response to JFG hadn't made clear) that their "temporary coverage" argument doesn't add up to me. I'd call it perplexing. But not something so out of this world that I would assume it to be anything but good faith. Anyway rhetoric that implies an affirmative act to disclude a user's contributions to a discussion is not the right way to impart that we think that user has missed the train on a given issue--as I think we both agree JFG did here. There are much better ways to impart that, and I feel this is true regardless of whether or not this or that editor assumes that you were being more literal or more emphatic. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I understand you're new here and are commenting in good faith, but you are not taking account of the context or substance of that user's participation here. He finally conceded that he was promoting his personal opinion which -- while absolutely unacceptable -- at least put an end to the denials and tail chasing that have plagued this thread and this issue here. Until you have vastly more experience on this page, it's best not to comment on contributors or behavior, even with the best of intentions. Thanks for your participation here. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Specifico, I am not "new to this article"; I've been summoned here by random bot notices for RfCs repeatedly over the last couple of years, and always find the same situation when I arrive; two highly politicized groups of editors slugging it out, with a larger but less zealously active group of editors between them, trying to right the ship and keep matters focused on policy and the sources, rather than personal feelings about the topic. Which facts you would have seen cited in my previous comment, had you read it more carefully rather than planning to defend the rampant polemics here as soon as you saw that my perspective was criticizing an ally. And not for nothing, but you're always at the center of these debates when I arrive here (or at just about any RfC that touches upon American national politics that I am bot summoned to), where I would say you may be the editor whose personal bias is most abundantly and explicitly attested. I suspect you and I share a lot of opinions about the topics of many of those articles that we could commiserate over if we were talking off project. But this isn't an open forum like Reddit or some such. When I participate in a discussion on a content discussion on this project, I have made a tacit commitment to sublimate my personal perspectives to community consensus regarding our policies and to support an approach to our articles which foregrounds them as taking priority even above what I think is a rational or accurate representation of the topic as I see it. The repeated Nazi comments and efforts to hedge out un-liked opinion were both inappropriate, and I probably would have made similar (if shorter) comments to that effect even if I had never seen this talk page before today (and your trying to suggest such criticism should not be made by page "outsiders" would have been inappropriate even in those circumstances). But as it happens, I have been brought here and to related articles about Trump by community outreach processes repeatedly over the last couple of years, and (like a great many other respondents here, I suspect) I know that these have become routine problems in these spaces. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the Nazi comment happened right at the tail end of a lot of bad obstruction that finally came to an end. I have barely skimmed those. The fact is that behavioral comments of any kind are very problematic on an article talk page. I'm not challenging your right to participate anywhere on this site. I'm just saying that -- not you, but any relatively less informed editor -- is unlikely to get the story straight. Fact is, you added nothing of value and this little sidetrack has been the result. At any rate, I appreciate your having made a clear response and I'd be glad to continue on my talk page if you feel I'm being dismissive or missing your point. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Since SPECIFICO has a bad habit of appearing to speak for more editors than herself, I'll comment that she doesn't speak for me. I welcome Snow Rise's participation here and I'd like to see more of it. And one editor does not a sidetrack make—ever. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to have the other editors here decide for themselves how useful my post was. I doubt very much I was the only person thinking any of that. And suffice it to say, I'm quite certain I've seen enough of the "story" here to support anything I said. Again: A) the comments in question don't have a context in which they are not applicable; Nazi comments and unilateral declarations that another editor should be "disqualified" for having a different opinion from oneself are both per se inadvisable, generally outright inappropriate, and mostly damaging to the underlying arguments, even when they are actually the more well-reasoned ones. And B) just how many dozen threads of individual RfCs do I have to be randomly summoned here (and to related Trump articles) for before I meet your arbitrary and subjective measure of a "relatively [more] informed editor" on the history of interactions of those who have stayed camped here the whole time in-between, because: i) I've been to a ton now, and ii) that's not how it works on this project anyway.

As to the rest, I may very well take you up on your kind offer to shift further exchange of opinions to your talk page should I think of a better way to say this in a manner that might bring us to accord. In the meantime, I agree it would be counterproductive to continue this line of discussion here. For one thing, the more I repeat myself the more critical it will seem that I am being of Scjessey, when in reality it is their suggested approach which I think best serves the article's needs and an accurate reading of policy. I suspect we are somewhat closer to agreement there. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that an experienced editor such as yourself would make broad statements, personal disparagements, and other mischaracterizations of the history of this article in so casual and corrigible a way. And everyone reading this knows that the article talk page is not the appropriate venue for any of this, even were it to be more firmly based in fact and sound judgment. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Who did I disparage there? In the entire post I only mentioned one editor by name and for the express purpose of stating that I felt that theirs was the right solution to this issue. As to general comments about the history here--oh yeah, how dare I suggest Talk:Donald Trump has been contentious; if I ran a straw poll on VPP right now, I'm sure it would be !voted "#1 in non-contentious, always 100% rational debate--just exactly like you'd expect from the most highly trafficked discussion space on Wikipedia exclusively concerned with how we describe Donald Trump!"

Look, my respected colleague: you didn't have to respond to me--my comment wasn't even addressed towards you. It's fine with me that you did respond and so long as you choose to keep engaging, I can give you the benefit of a polite response. It feels like we're past the point where you are open to anything I am saying and continuing this will be a distraction, but if you want to talk, I will--here or at your talk page. But this entire subthread is you repeatedly telling me I should have kept my mouth shut, that my comments were purposeless, and that I don't know what I am talking about. And if you expect me to just concede to that, you are going to have to bring a better class of argument than you have thus far, or settle in for a long wait. But I do sincerely wish you a good day. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: - "Over" and "Blunder" ignore every source, reliable sources, POV-blogs right and left, etc etc -- all of which are discussing the ongoing details of these horrors and (right:) how they are teaching the Hispanics a needed lesson or (left:) showing Trump's disregard for law in order to to demonstrate sympathy with white supremecist narratives. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment that this story is blown out of proportion because of political tensions in the USA, noting that it is indeed personal opinion. I maintain that the peak of the crisis is behind us, and that people will have jumped to the next scandal by the time this RfC runs its course. When editors start describing political operatives as "SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer" and law enforcement agencies as "jackbooted thugs", I'm happy to bow out of the discussion. Had these remarks been typed by a less reputable editor than Scjessey, s/he would have found their way to WP:AE pronto. Finally, dear SPECIFICO, I will not dignify you with any further response after you dared compare this admittedly deplorable situation to the Iraq War that claimed a million innocent lives. — JFG ^talk 17:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Your admission is constructive. Adios. But having said that, please do not tie up and derail future discussions and RfCs based solely on your personal opinions. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not to try and outdo SPECIFICO's hyperbole, but the parents of the snatched children were told "we are going to take their picture" or "we are going to bathe them" by ICE liars. That sounds an awful like what what families were told at Auschwitz. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

that's a sick disgusting comparison in Auschwitz the children were mass murdered as were most of the parents no one here is being killed עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we try to stay out of Godwin territory. Over the top commentary is not winning converts.- Mr X 🖋 18:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I totally second (third? fourth?) the objections to the Hitler/Nazi references here. Let's have no more of that kind of talk, User:Scjessey. It is completely out of place in this discussion. And don't forget, according to some interpretations of Godwin's law, by making Nazi references you just lost the argument. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN alt: The comment about Stephen Miller was meant to be a joke, referring to his well-known extreme right wing position. The comment about Auschwitz, however, came from the media. I first saw a reference to it on Twitter, and this was later expanded upon. So you could argue my comment is supported by reliable sources. Kinda. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

How about focusing on the trolling and denial that leads to this kind of over-the-top comment? Nip it in the bud. The shower and snack bit has been widely reported in the press. Strange that some editors haven't read those RS accounts. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(restored part of the hatted section that is directly discussing content) — JFG ^talk 21:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: - "Over" and "Blunder" ignore every source, reliable sources, POV-blogs right and left, etc etc -- all of which are discussing the ongoing details of these horrors and (right:) how they are teaching the Hispanics a needed lesson or (left:) showing Trump's disregard for law in order to to demonstrate sympathy with white supremecist narratives. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment that this story is blown out of proportion because of political tensions in the USA, noting that it is indeed personal opinion. I maintain that the peak of the crisis is behind us, and that people will have jumped to the next scandal by the time this RfC runs its course. (Replies to Godwin point rhetoric omitted) — JFG ^talk 17:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes (Icewhiz Rework). The original sentence could seem misleadingly broad, but the rework is more specific. To the claim that this topic is WP:UNDUE, I would note that this policy has attracted significant media attention, along with widespread protests. Henry ^TALK 23:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
No - It's borderline undue per WP:LEAD, but mostly it's just not correct. I can overlook the 'enacted' incorrectness, but 'reversed' is untrue, and 'forcibly' is overly dramatic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Probably not It seems a little too much detail for the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes - still very relevant and notable, way past any RECENTISM concerns.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes Per Clealy due.Casprings (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
No because it's been quickly reversed. Not to mention that the family separation aspect does not belong, since it's not Trump who managed that aspect – it's actually the 1997 Flores settlement extended to accompanied children by the 9th Circuit Court for Appeals. Some have said that this was very noteworthy – let's wait a few months until recentism settles down to see whether this gains continued coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 12:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: You are incorrect, and basically parroting administration talking points. It was the Trump administration, and specifically Jeff Sessions under Trump's direction (presumably because Stephen Miller told him to) who reinterpreted the Flores settlement and enforced the separation policy that was not enforced under previous administrations. And it was only "reversed" under massive public pressure, and in a half-assed way so that hundreds and hundreds of children are still separated. Just yesterday, it was reported that the parent of one of the separated children was deported, effectively making the child an orphan. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: No, you are incorrect. Jeff Sessions did not "reinterpret the Flores settlement", he followed it to a T. To cite the American Immigration Lawyers Association:

July 6, 2016 — The Ninth Circuit held that the Flores settlement agreement applies both to minors who are accompanied and unaccompanied by their parents, and that the lower court correctly refused to amend the agreement to accommodate family detention. The court also found that the lower court erred in interpreting the agreement to provide an affirmative right to release for accompanying parents, but did not preclude such release and explicitly made no determination about whether DHS is making otherwise appropriate and individualized release determinations for parents. (Flores v. Lynch, 7/6/16) (bold emphasis added)

and [under] the 1997 settlement, DHS could detain unaccompanied children captured at the border for only 20 days before releasing them to foster families, shelters or sponsors, pending resolution of their immigration cases. FactCheck.org wumbolo ^^^ 13:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: You misunderstand. Regardless of what Flores says, no administration enforced separation until Trump's did. Ergo, TRUMP is responsible. Compare it to the multi-decade policy of US administrations that stated an intention to move the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It was deferred by many presidents because of the delicate political situation. Then TRUMP came along and decided to enforce the previously stated policy and get the embassy moved. This kind of thing is common, but it is important for you to understand that per reliable sources, TRUMP is to blame. TRUMP separated families. TRUMP orphaned children. TRUMP lost children. No other administration did anything like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No children are lost [19].--MONGO (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, both of you are out in the weeds here. Please refamiliarize yourselves with WP:Original research and stop filling up talk threads with extended debate about why Trump and his policies should or should not be described in this or that way, based upon your own internal logic--no matter how confident you are in that logic and no matter how many people here seem to support it. That is not how we arrive at descriptions in our content for this encyclopedia. Instead, please predicate your arguments on the WP:WEIGHT of how reliable sources describe the subject, his policies, and his actions. And yes, Scjessey, I do see that you paid lip-service to RS at the end there, but only after extensive ruminations connecting the dots with your own logic; you also did not cite any sources to support your assertions, let alone establish that said assertions are the general message of all sources on the matter (or otherwise WP:DUE). Snow ^{let's rap} 01:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No - Seems like pretty obvious WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
No per RECENTISM and the fact that the word "policy" is controversial here. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Controversial? Sessions announced it as a policy. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree--or at least I agree with your conclusion, though I arrive at it via a different line of reasoning. The reason it is not controversial for us to describe the practice as a "policy" is not directly because Sessions announced it (that reasoning is WP:Original research; we aren't allowed to decide for ourselves how to describe a practice based on our own rationale, no matter how solid we feel the logic of our interpretation to be). Rather, the reason editors should (and have) constructed our prose to describe the practice as a "policy" in this and related articles is because that is how it is very clearly described in the overwhelming majority of the WP:reliable sources. It's a matter of WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV, not independent reasoning. That caveat noted, I agree that Mr. Guye's assertion does not hold water. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No - I object to the and later reversed language at this time; it's not yet clear that the policy has been fully reversed, and even if it has been reversed, its effects have not been reversed. As a version without that language would also have problems, the best thing to do is leave it out of the lead at this time, and discuss it only in the body, where there is room for such nuance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a really good point that has gotten kind of lost in the weeds here while attention was focused on the recentism/lasting import debate. Honestly, I for one hadn't thought about the issue raised by that second clause at all, until you raised it--though it seems obvious now in hindsight. But can I ask, if we addressed your concerns there by omitting reference to the "reversal" or nuancing the wording to reflect that the future of the practice is in question, would you otherwise be in support of inclusion? Snow ^{let's rap} 00:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If there's a wording to the effect of "His child-separation policy was the subject of much discussion and controversy", I'm fine with it. (That specific wording is awful). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No - Coverage in the body of the page is of course acceptable but it would be WP:UNDUE to include in the lead. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
No - WP:UNDUE in the lead. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Not for now. It seems too early to tell if this is so important that it belongs in a 5-paragraph summary of Trump's life. My suspicion is no, so I'd leave it out for now. However if secondary sources are highlighting this story as one of the defining stories of his presidency say, a month or two from now, then I'd be inclined to include at that point. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Based on the coverage it's one of the most noteworthy aspects of his biography. --Aquillion (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
No - I agree with markbassett, this seems overly dramatic and feels more political than encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjbagl (talk • contribs) 14:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
No. We should not be doing a hatchet job on the subject of this biography. This is the biography of the person, not the article on the Presidency of Donald Trump. Is the person known for hating children or being mean to children? Is the person known for being "anti-family"? A blunder by the Trump administration belongs in the other article. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes with Icewhiz rewording, this is one of the most covered aspects of his biog. Pincrete (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC) ps I am also sceptical as to whether 'reversed' is the most accurate word. Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. As mentioned by others, this fact appears to be regarded as being one of the primary notable events of the Trump presidency, which more than justifies its presence in the lead. Unless the lead were to be drastically cut down to remove other notable aspects of his presidency (and why would anyone want that?), I can't see a good reason to remove this particular one.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 11:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Scjessey's(Summoned by bot) Preferred version. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Question: Obviously this happened, and the word "tragic" does not do it justice. But are we content with having an article from Buzzfeed be the only source for a critical portion of the body's account of what happened? If we are, I question whether this belongs in the body, much less the lede. With an article that falls under the BLP policy and thus in an area of conflict, we do not get to take shortcuts. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 05:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
No But I would support a revision that avoided using "enacted" as long as the rest stayed substantially the same. (Buzzfeed and BBC News use "forcibly" but do not use "enacted".) -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 07:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
NO - as per PackMecEng above. I was sent a talk page notice to respond here and I actually find it hard to believe that anyone would say yes to this as it violates NPOV. As written it is actually also untrue. There was already a policy in place that separated children from illegal immigrants. What the president enacted had the effect of doubling the number of illegal immigrant children being separated. So the initial part of the proposal is wrong. It was also not really reversed. "Forcibly" is also a pov term as it could simply say a "policy that separated children from parents." But the sentence construction is still a mess since it reads that the policy was enacted to separate children from parents rather than a consequence of the parents being sent to detention facilities because of the zero tolerance enactment. I haven't read the actual article at all, but seeing this possible addition makes me very afraid of what other falsehoods or stretching of truth might also be in the article. Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
No WP:UNDUE for lede, which should succinctly summarize only the most salient details of his life.LM2000 (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. He is the President and responsible for this cruel and heartless policy and his appointees enforcing it (e.g., Nielsen). It defines him at least as much as his fluctuating net worth and having owned the beauty pageants. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Off topic, unconstructive. See WP:BATTLEGROUND. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Stop editorializing. Just because mods who share your views aren't going to punish you for it, doesn't mean you should openly flaunt policy and disrupt talk pages. Go find a forum or start a blog if you want to rant about how wrong it is to enforce federal law. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Editorializing, flaunting, disrupting, ranting? Who's editorializing here except for you? I voted in an RfC and stated why I voted the way I did. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment - only a few editors have weighed in on my alternative text (in my comment above), but those that have done so have looked upon it favorably. Rather than complicate the issue, I will present the alternative text in a new RfC once this one concludes. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Because the part "and enacted an immigration enforcement policy that forcibly separated children from parents, that he later reversed" is just as false as the first alternative in so far as it sounding like that was the the no-tolerance policy's objective. And it was not reversed, it was revised. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Er... what? The Trump administration pointedly said that the way to avoid child separation was to not enter the country illegally. This draconian interpretation of an existing policy was heartlessly used as a punishment and deterrent. After initially falsely claiming it was out of his hands, Trump reversed his policy with a totally unnecessary, meaningless executive order. Moreover, reliable sources all refer to it as a reversal (example) in their coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Wow. A policy of zero-tolerance was enacted. A consequence of that was to add to the amount of child separation because of existing laws that prohibited those children to be put into the detention facilities after 20 days. This was already happening before the president's policy, but on a much smaller scale. What was revised was the item on allowing children to stay in detention. We now have to house the thousands of unaccompanied illegal alien children. That's a revision of the no-tolerance policy (which is still in affect). Of course the consequence of the separation section of zero-tolerance happened under presidents Trumps watch, so he and the Republicans rightly bear the brunt of the public backlash. But then the Democrats also don't really want it fixed in any manner since they can keep using it as a weapon. It's politics as usual between the parties and I usually just laugh at anyone who gets sucked into believing either side. But the bottom line is the lines you proposed are not accurate for an encyclopedia. It's simple pov in the world of politics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Process discussion: Immigration

@MrX: I can see why you might skip the BOLD edit for something like this, since a challenge would be close to certain. But why are you going straight to RfC? WP:RFCBEFORE: "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." Where is the failed attempt to reach a consensus? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I already made the bold edit. JFG reverted it with the edit summary "Not impactful enough for the lede". Given how most discussions on the 89 pages of this talk page devolve into digressions and derailments, I thought it best to have a formal request for comments.- Mr X 🖋 12:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

A discussion about RfCs and AfDs. Not related to resolving this RfC.- Mr X 🖋 12:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

MrX, I'm also not sure if you should vote on your own RfC. Generally, people who propose something (such as afd) do not vote on their own proposals. (See WP:AFDFORMAT). L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC is not AfD, and editors routinely !vote on "their own" RfCs. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an RfC not an AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 12:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Motion to close

I move to close the RFC with no consensus for any specific wording regarding how to discuss the Trump administration family separation policy in the lead; I cannot assess a consensus as to whether that material should be included in the lead at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please request an uninvolved close at wp:AN. SPECIFICO talk 01:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Can't we clean this mess up ourselves? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You're giving me the softball questions? ANS: no. Anyway, that would be unusual. There was only an RfC due to some rather tenuous opposition. And now, with events continuing unresolved and worsening daily for the families affected by the Administration's flouting and ignoring the courts' orders, I don't see any of the "oppose" folks updating their comments to reflect RS coverage. Best to have a close. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is time for this to be be closed. I was reading through it last week (before the bot archived it) and thought about closing it myself, but it struck me as a difficult close...something that would probably be better with a panel. I didn't do any actual counting of votes, but I was seeing good arguments for and against inclusion. Alternatively if you're looking for an in-house closer, @MelanieN: didn't participate in the RfC and I'd trust her as a closer, but she's on vacation for the week I think. ~Awilley (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have requested a close by an uninvolved admin. I have considered Awilley's suggestion of a closing panel, but I think we've got enough procedural hurdles to maintain this article; this particular episode is getting old, and a panel would needlessly delay the outcome. — JFG ^talk 05:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It is clearly a deadlocked discussion. There's no consensus for the proposed wording, although it appears something is desired, so let's just close this thread with "no consensus" and we can have another go with alternative wording in a new thread. I don't think either "side" would dispute such a close. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll just do it. ~Awilley (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2018 (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.

Challenge close

I've posted on Awilley's talk and asked him to undo his close and honor the request JFG made at AN [20]. Next step would be needlessly cumbersome escalation to a formal review which is an UNDUE burden for us all. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I find your arguments at User talk:Awilley uncompelling, particularly the part about Awilley being too familiar with this page and its participants to close this discussion. That simply contradicts both close policy—I invite you to read up on that—and common practice. If it were User:SomeUnknownEditor, I might feel differently, but I think Awilley is as competent as any closer you might bring in from outside (which is not to say that all competent closers would close this the same way). (Personal attack removed) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't personalize talk page discussions and don't disparage other users' motivations for clearly articulated statements here or elsewhere. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll let you have your spurious {{rpa}} as it isn't worth edit warring about. But not without pointing out that your challenge to this close, per your comments on his TP, is 100% based on the claim that Awilley may lack the integrity to keep his personal views in check with regard to it, and should therefore reverse and recuse. That seems a lot like "disparag[ing] other users' motivations" to me. Applying your own standard, then, your entire challenge should be rpa'd. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Richest politician edit request on 18 August 2018

WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Please change "richest politician in history" to "richest man to be elected president" because it's misleading. He was not a politician; he was a real estate mogul. Most politicians gain wealth because of the office they held. You neglect to mention he was worth $3.1 billion when he entered the presidency. He donated his last year salary to transportation infrastructure. Most presidents enter the exit the office with much more money than they entered with. The entire page is riddled with innuendos of Trump being racist. Why don't you mention that he received the 'Ellis Island Award' for diversity, patriotism and tolerance alongside Rosa Parks and Muhammad Ali? He was also honored by Jesse Jackson twice. The video is available on You Tube. I am a teacher and 1/2 my students received an incomplete on their papers due to your lack of professionalism. You can understand my dilemma when students read their reports and even though they have done the research, their "facts" are conflicted. It is confusing the students. In fact, the faculty at Madison Elementary school has voted to no longer allow students to use Wikipedia as a source. Interestingly enough, most of the faculty are Democrats (including myself. However, the behavior of fellow Democrats and entities like Wikipedia had made me question where my alliances are). The faculty at Madison (and now New Trier High School too) are more devoted to teaching the children history rather than the political opinions of the writers on Wikipedia. If you wish for Wikipedia to be taken seriously, you must include facts in your entries. You can try to rewrite History, but eventually the truth will prevail.

I compared the Barack Obama entry with Donald Trump's. It is obvious Wikipedia has turned into a political website. I am grateful to my students for inadvertently showing me. Interestingly, I expected the much less known, "Conservapedia" to have a biased twist, but it was more factual than your political website. Congratulations! You've lost all credibility - with Democrats. Sbrawsm (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Not done - Please provide a specific description of the edit request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not helpful and will often be rejected; the request should be of the form "please change X to Y because...". - Mr X 🖋 01:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Opening last paragraph

The opening section has more paragraphs than the usual four. Due to the large amount of information relating to Trump, I understand it is difficult to reduce it down without losing key information. However, I feel that that the Mueller investigation is not yet notable enough for the lead as it has not yet affected Trump directly. Obviously this may change in the future. I propose the paragraph is removed to streamline the page. Would be interested to hear your views. Nonsuchpark (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE - comment actually added by Epsomathlete Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Masnafort, Trump former campaign chair on trial, George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty, Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty, Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide plea deal. Trump tweets and talks about the investigation nearly daily. It’s difficult to see how this isn’t highly relevant and notable. O3000 (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with O3000. Define "affected directly". You could say Watergate didn't affect Nixon directly until he resigned, and Monicagate didn't affect Clinton directly until he was impeached (was he affected directly if he was acquitted?). But, had Wikipedia existed then, both subjects would have become lead-worthy in the respective articles long before those events occurred. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Mueller investigation has very little to do with Trump's life, other than becoming one of the many things to annoy him greatly. This is very relevant to Presidency of Donald Trump, though. Trying to connect a 2005 tax fraud case and a lie told to the FBI by a Trump ex-employee is quite a stretch. Keeping it in there is non-neutral and it should be stricken. Same reason we don't mention the Clinton-Russia-Simpson-Steele-Ohr dossier in Hillary Clinton's lead. Without strong evidence of criminality, that would be very unfair to Mrs. Clinton, as we don't yet know if she and the DNC violated any laws with their purchase from Russia, and it's probably not a significant event in the woman's life. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment I'll support the OP's proposal, though I expect that account is likely to be blocked for other reasons. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
OTHER: The WP:LEADLENGTH guide that lead should be no more than 4 paragraphs is a general guideline but not an absolute rule. The typical for Presidents (from Nixon on) seems to be opening para, life before presidency, presidency, and a close of evaluation plus life after. I would suggest to reduce by OTHER ways of merger and tighter writing. That Mueller bit logically would not be a separate para but instead is part of the para about his presidency. Otherwise I would suggest the Presidency para could and should be rewritten more tightly at lines as things keep arriving, to have it just identify the major items and eliminate smaller bits as more shows up. For example, reduce the 3 lines of travel ban to just name the travel ban without mention of legal challenges as a lower detail. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose the astonishing claim the Mueller investigation isn't notable enough for the lead. It absolutely has affected Trump directly, and it is biographically enormously significant. It has put him and his family in legal jeopardy, it has led to several members of Trump's campaign and administration being indicted/charged/convicted/fired, with others being threatened with firing, and has led to a near continuous stream of rally and Twitter-based attacks from Trump on our systems of government, justice, and intelligence gathering. Also, the investigation spans a much longer period than the presidency. Indeed, the focus is more on the campaign, so Mark's idea of folding it into the paragraph on the presidency is a non-starter. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – The Mueller probe is clearly one of the most notable ongoing events in Trump's presidency, even if he is not personally indicted. Besides, the guideline on 4 paragraphs is not even violated here; I wouldn't count the intro sentence as a full paragraph. — JFG ^talk 12:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Support This article is Trump's BLP, not the Presidency of Donald Trump article. I see the confusion, intentional or not, daily at this article and this article's talk page. Not sure why the concept of the two being completely different animals is so hard for some to grasp. That's not finger-pointing, it's honest confusion on my part. To me it's black and white. The man is 72 years old. He lived 70 years of life prior to becoming president, literally more than 85% of it not related in any way to politics. This article and the lead are supposed to highlight the span of his life, not the last two to three years years since he announced his candidacy (or even when the "birtherism" thing started). Go with the facts and statistics, folks - not emotions. Please. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Support I think I would go up one paragraph. Everything south of "During his presidency..." is over-detailed political POV for this article's lead. No comment on content, just location. Sammy D III (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. This is like saying that we should remove references to Parkinson's from the Michael J. Fox because we don't know whether he'll die from it or from an unrelated cause. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This talk page has a: "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" flag on the top. The first line of the second box is" "Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article..." Again :"No comment on content, just location." Sammy D III (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

RFCs on Russian interference in the 2018 election

As this page is far more active than WT:WikiProject Politics, I'll notify this page that there are RFCs open at Talk:United States elections, 2018, Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2018, and Talk:United States Senate elections, 2018 regarding how Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections should be discussed on those pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2018

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

At the end of the 3rd paragraph, the final sentence reads "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged."

By whom ??????? liberals ?, Trump haters ?, what source(s) verify or support this statement.

This blanket statement without reference or connection is wholly without credibility at best, and libelous at worse.

Kindly edit the statement to at least remove his supporters from this "supposed and alleged stated perception"

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Respectfully,

Craig Johnson 106.184.21.202 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Numerous sources verify this, this was recently added by a consensus in this discussion Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

As for the sources: there are seven Reliable Sources cited in the article, in the section Donald Trump#False statements. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You are misusing the edit request facility, per the instructions shown when you clicked "Submit an edit request". See also WP:Edit requests. If you just want to start a discussion, use the "New section" link at the top of this page. 68.97.37.107 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the Trump Administration's effect on the outcome of the 2018 midterms be mentioned in the article?

This is going to be an issue in about...oh, three months now so I wanted to get out ahead of it: should the article include any mention of the Trump Administration's alleged role in who gets voted into congressional office in November 2018? Historically, the US public tends to vote more heavily for the other party in the mid terms, but since Trump is controversial (or perhaps has never been given a fair chance by the public or the media) I feel like getting a feel for this now so we can act approrpeiately when the time comes. What say ye? TomStar81 (Talk) 16:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we should only note the outcome of the election (i.e. do Republicans maintain control of the Senate and House), and not mention Trump's purported impact on the races, unless Trump is identified as having a major impact by RS. We can't know until November. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

In the article? Probably. (Of course, until the midterms happen, it's impossible to know for sure). In the lead section: probably not, at least not immediately. I feel I can say definitively I won't support it in the lead in 2018, regardless of the election outcome, even if it's a shock 100-seat swing for either party. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the question regards whether this information should be added in November. It's obviously premature to add anything now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No. It is WP:SPECULATION at this time, but this is BLP, and the election of others is WP:OFFTOPIC as not biographical material on him. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Wait until something happens We should not speculate on what his influence will be on the upcoming congressional elections. If he exerts a clear influence that is supported by reliable sources, then it will be mentioned in this article. There is no reason to act as if we have a deadline, as extended confirmed users can edit this article at any time. I understand that Donald Trump is a very controversial man. However, this is the very reason that we must be careful not to be overzealous in what we put in the article. It must be relevant and reasonable to include in the main article, rather than one of the subarticles. The influence that he may, or may not, have on the upcoming elections may be better suited to the article on his presidency, rather than his biographical article itself. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Impossible to say at this stage. In this case, "getting out ahead" is just premature speculation. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
No, WP:CRYSTAL. O3000 (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Is planning ahead sort of prejudicial? The first paragraph sort of implies a bias (which way doesn't matter). Sammy D III (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It does not imply bias. The original poster is simply thinking ahead to what seems to be a likely shift in political control. Let's not make false accusations of bias, even with subtle language. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe "(or perhaps has never been given a fair chance by the public or the media)" implies a political position. I did not comment on it other than say it might be there. I stand behind my post. Sammy D III (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC).

@Sammy D III: Insofar as it relates to this article, I'm just attempting to get an informal feel for whether people think the material deserves a mention here. I personally feel it doesn't because there are other article on or related to Trump's president that are in better position to cover the relationship between the US President and the US Congress. Ideally, I'd move for the information to be presented in its entirely in that article 116th United States Congress since that Congress is going to inherit the men and women elected in November, so there would be ample space to discuss whatever role Trump did or did not play in the elections there while keeping this article focused on Trump the person. I'm certain when the time comes there will be a full fledged RFC on the matter somewhere (here most likely since the consensus list is based on this talk page), but nothing says we can't test the waters by asking the community ahead of time. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@TomStar81: I am sorry I miss-understood your first post (also that it took me so long to notice this one). I thought you were talking specifically, not generally. I agree that probably none of it belongs here (as I just said in post above). I also confused the "lead" (above) for the article in total (here?).

I'm sorry if it looked like an attack, I just used a sentence from anybody as an example. I have enough real enemies already, I'm not trying to recruit any more. I hope you have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like to me there is a clear consensus to wait and see what actually happens before making a decision. The reminder of Trump having other articles has also been brought up. No comment on whether the OP was trying to be biased or impose a political position. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if appropriate. I was trying to make a vague example, not attack anybody. Nobody is pushing politics here. Sammy D III (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably The mid-term elections will be important; whether the GOP is able to retain their majority or not will obviously affect Trump's ability to pass legislation in the second half of his first term. Not to mention this will affect impeachment efforts. Also, I don't have a problem with User:Snooganssnoogans asking ahead of time to get a feel for what editors are thinking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Meh, no. It opens the door to yet another universe of speculation, tweets, comments, responses, etc. Of course the midterms are going to be important, but so are a lot of other things that are planned but haven't happened yet. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
No WP:CRYSTAL, anyone? Wikipedia still isn't news and isn't on a deadline. If there's a documented effect and such is supported by data and statistics reported by reliable sourcespost on November 7, 2018, it can go into the article then, but not before. Besides, this is the Donald Trump article, not the Presidency of Donald Trump article. The question re: midterms is more appropriate there, not here. Even then, my response would remain the same. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
No to any advance planing. React to what has happened. Couldn't discussing and speculating prior to an event can affect the event? Sammy D III (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it can. And likely would. Can't have any of that coming from Wikipedia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Have to add that to Observer effects. O3000 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. It's not the most absolute case of WP:CRYSTAL ever, as we can certainly cite a wealth of WP:RS which are already speculating about the impact Trump's notoriety will have upon the elections, and have been for some time. However, as a matter of WP:WEIGHT in this highly important and crowded article, I just don't see a good argument for the inclusion until such time as said impact has manifested (whatever it turns out to be). Even then, there may be a strong case for omitting that information here, in favour of hilighting it only in Presidency of Donald Trump--but that's a bridge which can be crossed when we get to it. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2018

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

Change in Section "2020 presidential campaign" [By Janury 2018, Trump's reelection committee] into [By January 2018, Trump's reelection committee] Enoausa (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Done--MONGO (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION

Why are there so many categories.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Because Donald Trump has had many diverse activities during his lifetime, and because several of those have attracted a fair amount of RS coverage. That being said, there are occasionally attempts to push borderline labelings of Trump into the article's categories. Feel free to suggest removal of things you deem WP:NON-DEFINING. — JFG ^talk 17:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

mmm propose comparing Categories of other presidents, to at least make some equivalent considerations. e.g. Add ... American Protestants, 20th century American writers, Wharton school alumni. Markbassett (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Trump's opinion — WP:UNDUE?

According to some editors, Trump's short quote is WP:UNDUE — diff, yet the views and quotes of David Duke are obviously fine. — diff. That's absurd, this is Trump's biography. What is your opinion? Per WP:BLP — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

What does "tabloid" have to do with anything? Is the Duke quote sourced to tabloids? No? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Including Trump's rebuttal is fine; however I really don't see what "I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK. Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now." adds to "Trump has said that he disavowed David Duke and the KKK on multiple occasions" - what extra information is given by that quote? Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Tobby72 Yes, the WP:BLP guidance to avoid tabloid behavior should be applied to this article, for what that is worth. For this quote, I will offer that it suits, but the edit to have it could also be either (1) it REPLACE the WP editor blurb “Trump has said” on the basis that both are not needed and his direct words are better in this BLP context, or (2) the quote be stated INSIDE A CITE for the “Trump has said” line so a statement on what he has said is shown by a cite to him saying which shows what he said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I think what we have in the article - a paraphrase of what Trump said, a paraphrase of what Duke said - is DUE in both cases. There is nothing to be gained by citing Trump's repetitious quote. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Pertaining to Trump's recognizing of Jerusalem

I feel the bit in the Israel section of the foreign policy that involves Trump recognizing Israel is overtly ignoring the support for the decision and only focusing on the negative:

Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on December 6, 2017, despite criticism and warnings from world leaders. Trump added that he would initiate the process of establishing a new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, which was later opened on May 14, 2018. The United Nations General Assembly condemned the move, adopting a resolution that "calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem" in an emergency session on December 21, 2017.

The wording enforces that Trump did something universally perceived as negative, with how it glosses over Israel's welcoming of Trump's decision or how multiple presidents before Trump announced they would do the same. Bold and Brash (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Realize that the UN criticism of the action was quite lopsided. 128 countries voted in favor of the resolution rejecting Trump’s decision. 35 abstained. Including the US and Israel, only eight countries were against the resolution: Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Togo, and the United States. This despite the fact that Trump had threatened to cut aid to any members that voted against his decision. O3000 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course I'm not saying the criticism should be removed as it is there and has its reasons, but to only present the negative in the situation as it currently stands leaves the reader's perception of the situation quite one-sided. Bold and Brash (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, reception to the decision was pretty one-sided. We could add a Wikilink to United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel, which goes into far more depth. But, there is already such a link in the lede, and there really isn’t much room for it in the section as it’s full of Wikilinks. (I just tried to find a place for it.) O3000 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

If you say so. Bold and Brash (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Bold and Brash I believe O3000 is just a bit off in minor points... 21 did not show in addition to the 128 voted for the resolution, 9 against, and 35 abstained. And it was Nikki Haley who asked why would the US fund the U.N. and not Trump threatening to cut aid to voting nations, which I think most of the 128 do not get anyway. (But given his nationalism, he might well say the US should not be funding all the nations it does, so extending that to the voting members is not a big stretch.)

But I am also thinking that as his BLP, the space given to non-Trump U.N. could be (or should be) simply removed in favor of mentioning his personal influences and his personal views. Perhaps mention of the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act reaffirmed just before unanimously by Senate as initiating cause; favorable voices from the Jewish parts of his family plus Pence plus the US ambassador; and lastly his own unorthodoxy voiced opinion that not doing so had not been working so he was breaking with delays of past Presidents. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue with Trump's Jerusalem decision is not how many people liked it or how many didn't. It's that it moved the US position from a kind of middle-of-the-road one to a totally pro-Israel one. In international diplomacy, middle-of-the-road positions are usually seen as wiser than treating issues as purely binary, where one sees each side as completely right or completely wrong. Taking an extreme position is seen as provocative. It's the provocative nature of Trump's decision that is the issue here. In saying this I am not making a forum style comment. I would be saying precisely the same thing if Trump had taken a totally pro-Palestine decision. One can be totally in support of Israel, and still see Trump's decision as provocative. We are an encyclopaedia, not a place where we support one side or the other on matters like this. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the summary of Trump's false and controversial statements be updated in the lead?

Arguments on both sides come down to preference versus policy and, in that regard, neither is stronger than the other. The opinions of editors being equally divided, there is no consensus to update the second paragraph of the lead with the proposed alternate version. Several other alternatives have, since this opened, been proposed. This is my opinion only on the question of this specific proposal. Chetsford (talka) 00:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Close requested.[21] — JFG ^talk 17:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Should the second paragraph of the lead be updated as follows?

From

Trump entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries. Commentators described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false. Trump was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.

To

Trump received extensive free media coverage during his 2016 presidential campaign, defeating sixteen Republican opponents in the primaries. He was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. Many of his public remarks have been controversial or false. Commentators have described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.

This streamlines some wording, updates the ongoing nature of the false and controversial remarks, and keeps the material in chronological order.

(Note: The above proposal does not preclude the additional wording proposed in the above RfC.)

Please indicate whether you support or oppose the proposed change to the wording (or very similar). If you wish to propose different wording, please start a separate RfC. Thank you. - Mr X 🖋 18:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a diff view of the proposed changes. ~Awilley (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Support Better wording and a little shorter.Casprings (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Support for the reasons given by MrX and Casprings. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Support per my rationale stated in the RfC.- Mr X 🖋 02:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - wrong sequence. The second line on commentators is part of the primaries and part of the sequence about his getting higher coverage in the primaries. So moving it to after that makes a hash of the primary section, and creates a confusing ambiguity or false image of when it is associated to either the election or the protests. If a line was associated to either of those it would be in addition to the line 2 bit during the primaries. Frankly, I’m not well disposed to random edits in lead without better explanation than “A or B” just thrown out. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
When you say "line" I assume you mean sentence, right? That sentence is a general statement that applies from mid-2015 forward. It would be confusing and misleading to leave it between his primary victory and election, as if the policies only applied to his candidacy.- Mr X 🖋 12:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It is referring to the description at the time of primaries prior to the mention of his getting media coverage. That makes a bit of sense. The alternative just abruptly starts by saying he got free media coverage comma defeated sixteen opponents which does not flow or make as much sense. Then the second version ends after his election with controversial statements and political positions then protests - as if the controversial statements starts only after he is in office, instead of being part of he got coverage in primaries. Placement in the order it occurred makes things a bit easier to understand. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Support - given reports of how many lies that Trump tells in a day is reported on the front page of major papers, it's a very significant. But being a lead, it should be in simpler terms. Use a simple term like "lie" instead of "false statements". Nfitz (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - It just doesn't read right to me. It puts "free media coverage" up front as if it was the most important thing, and the structure just seems a little awkward. I'm going to write an alternative version presently. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Support - Article right now seems very biased and this feels like it removes some of that. It's very hard to remain neutral/non-biased with a topic like this, and the current article fails that test for me in numerous places, one of them being right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjbagl (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Conditional support as secondary to my preferred by Scjessey - see below. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose (both proposed versions) – I still fail to see anything wrong with the second paragraph as it stands. Almost each word of it has been parsed through hundreds of man-hours and megabytes of discussion. Nothing of substance has changed: Trump is still blunt, controversial, populist and creative with facts. Re-shuffling sentences for sport has zero value. — JFG ^talk 21:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It's outdated. The proposal obviously does more than re-shuffling sentences. Do you have any serious reason for opposing the proposed wording?- Mr X 🖋 11:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Read your own proposal again: it literally just re-shuffles existing sentences, here they are with one word per sentence:

Current: Primaries, Positions, Media, Controversial, Victory, Stats, Protests
Proposed: Media, Primaries, Victory, Stats, Controversial, Positions, Protests

Nothing to change, really. Nothing outdated either. This paragraph is a condensed narrative of the two years during which Trump rose to power. Those facts won't change. We could do without the extended presidential stats, but readers seem to enjoy this. — JFG ^talk 04:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I think the primary change, which is a bit difficult to see in the diff and is unclear in the proposal, is that the "false statements" bit is removed from a sentence about the campaign and is moved to after the "Victory" sentence, implying there were false statements during the presidency as well. The verb tense also changes from past ("were") to present perfect ("have been"). Correct me if I'm wrong, MrX. ~Awilley (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If the main purpose is to indicate that Trump has continued to utter false and controversial statements after he was elected, a much simpler RfC could be called. Regardless, this paragraph focuses on Trump's campaign and election, I don't see a benefit in conflating events that happened during his presidency, which is the focus of the following paragraph. — JFG ^talk 15:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Pointing out a presidential candidate received free media coverage is a little the sky is blue. Yes it was more than others, but it is still trivia. PackMecEng (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

What does your comment have to do with this proposal? Free media coverage is already in the current version and it already enjoys consensus.- Mr X 🖋 11:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose The extensive free coverage bit is out of place. It reads as if it was the deciding factor in the primaries, if not the general. While it was certainly a factor, it would probably be controversial to say it was undoubtedly the deciding one.LM2000 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. The "free media coverage" piece might have been leadworthy when it was added, but at this point it should be removed in light of all of the more leadworthy stuff that has developed since then. Pushing it to the opening sentence of the paragraph is a step in the wrong direction. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Support; seems like a broad improvement. The amount of press coverage he received (which seems to be the only controversial part) is a major topic that has extensive coverage in the article, cited to a wide variety of high-quality sources; it's entirely appropriate to lead in with it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment - I should mention, I'm less than familar with his political campaign (I'm from the United Kingdom), but which source actually states his win was "a surprise?" The phrase "many of his public statements were controversial or false." seems to be a bit strong (and certainly would need to be written in great depth in the target article). The proposed change simply seems to be for the removal of "populist, protectionist, and nationalist.", which if he is stated as being this, I fail to see what removing this from the lede helps. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose The sentence, "Trump received extensive free media coverage during his 2016 presidential campaign, defeating sixteen Republican opponents in the primaries" implies that Trump received extensive free media coverage only during the Republican primaries. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: Much time has passed, so it may not be obvious that a different version of this is being considered (see below). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2018 (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.

Alternative language

The alternative proposal to the proposal above had three editors register decipherable opinions. While all three supported the alternative proposal, the discussion did not attract the attention or engagement of the previous discussion and both were part of the same RfC, suggesting that the opinions of editors to both sets of proposals needed to be looked at holistically. The original proposal was largely opposed by editors (e.g. User:PackMecEng and User:DrFleischman) for the inclusion of the phrase "free media coverage" in the first sentence, which has not changed, nor has the opinion of the editors who objected (insofar as they have registered it here), therefore, I assume their objections to amendment remain. Other editors (e.g. User:JFG) opposed any change at all) and such a blanket position would not be overcome by any alternative. Therefore, I don't believe the alternate proposal attracted a consensus for implementation. However, it might not be unreasonable to propose the alternative wording as a fresh and separate RfC which might help overcome opposition by allowing !voters to reevaluate and reformulate their opinions, something that they largely chose not to do in this one (probably due to lack of awareness of the alternative). Chetsford (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Here's my effort. It slightly reworks the first couple of MrX's sentences:

Entering the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage, Trump defeated sixteen Republican opponents in the primaries. He was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. Many of his public remarks have been controversial or false. Commentators have described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.

-- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Weak support as a second choice, if my proposal does not gain consensus. It's an improvement over what we currently have, but I believe my version is more narrative. I'm especially not fond of starting a paragraph in passive voice.- Mr X 🖋 12:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I could rewrite it to avoid the passive voice in the opening sentence and shift it to the second to make it flow better:

Trump entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage. After defeating sixteen Republican opponents in the primaries, he was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. Commentators have described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. Many of his public remarks have been controversial or false, and his election and policies have sparked numerous protests.

Is that any better? (edit: swapped things around at the end a bit) -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Drop the word "controversial" as "controversial" is unremarkable. Rewrite as "Many of his public remarks have been false." I am not saying I support the proposed wording; I am simply criticizing it. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not bothered by "controversial", but you should drop the word "false". It is a blatant and unwarranted statement of bias - not something an encyclopaedia is supposed to do. -- Jim Pleiades Hawkins (talk)

The "controversial" discussion is in a different thread. Trump has made many remarkable controversial statements that are not false. A couple of days ago, for example, he said he regarded the European Union as a "foe". It is not a "false" statement, but it is certainly controversial (and alarming to any sane people). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

what sane people are you referring to the sane people who think separating children from their criminal parents is comparable to the nazis separating children from their parents to murder them real sane people understand that there is no comparison and that the eu is a foe on trade like Trump said עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@AmYisroelChai: I'm referring to the sane people who know how to use punctuation and letter cases in a comment, mostly. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

so not to the insane who think the mass murder of millions of people is the same as arresting people who cross the border illegally and since when does punctuation and letter case matter in a comment עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey—please comment on content rather than editors, as per WP:TPG#YES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: At what point did I comment on editors? I mentioned nobody. Move along, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey—you referred to "the sane people who know how to use punctuation and letter cases in a comment". Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) But it is illogical to join the two concepts. "Controversial" statements are almost the norm. They are necessary at times. But "false" statements are worth taking note of, even in the lede. A president sometimes has to say controversial things. Is the whole country of one mind on all matters? But should a president tell big fat lies? If he does, that may be worthy of inclusion in his biography. I think we take falsehoods seriously, while the controversial position is understood to sometimes be the hallmark of a great statesman. I'm not arguing for the "great statesman" characterization. But when you link "controversial" to "false" you are creating a logical inconsistency. Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"False" alone does not tell the whole story, as per Scjessey's example above, and "controversial" is a compromise word for the remainder of it. Would you prefer "divisive" or "inflammatory"? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"Controversy", "divisive", "inflammatory" all refer to relatively unremarkable concepts. "False" is entirely different. Statesmen are not supposed to lie to us. But they very often have to take "controversial" positions. That is fairly normal. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: It is not "fairly normal" for a president to make controversial comments, or at least it wasn't until Trump took office. Usually, such comments are limited to the really crazy members of the House of Reprehensibles (the gentleman from the 1st congressional district of Texas, for example). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Untrue at all. The constituency of a representative of a country holds very different views on a variety of questions, and the way forward is not always clear. The present is always murky and the path chosen by a president is almost invariably going to seem controversial in the thick of besetting issues. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Semantics. It's "fairly normal" in the sense of the word that Bus stop is assuming—particularly in contemporary U.S. politics. But words often have different and nuanced meanings, and we're using a different meaning of the word. As I've said, if you want something more precise, it's divisive or inflammatory. Neither of those is "fairly normal" for a president, by any definition or sense of the words. Presidents are not generally known to be divisive or inflammatory in their speech, and in fact until Trump they were expected to be the opposite. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

In the context of a sentence making a reference to "false" statements, even "divisive" and "inflammatory" are a world apart. There should be a full stop between any assertion of falsehood and assertions relating to the far more mild qualities of being controversial, inflammatory, or divisive. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It's better, but I don't really care for "Trump entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican", which is redundant because he won the Republican primaries, and since he won the presidential election, it's obvious he entered the campaign. That's why I wrote "Trump received extensive free media coverage during his 2016 presidential campaign, defeating sixteen Republican opponents in the primaries.", because it avoids redundancy.- Mr X 🖋 15:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that he entered as a Republican (having previously run for a different party and also been a Democrat) is noteworthy, so perhaps the second appearance of "Republican" is the one to lose:

Trump entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage. After defeating sixteen opponents in the primaries, he was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. Commentators have described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. Many of his public remarks have been controversial or false, and his election and policies have sparked numerous protests.

How's that? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would support that.- Mr X 🖋 15:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It makes no sense to say he "entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage. How did he receive extensive free media coverage? Why did he receive free media coverage? By what means or by what mechanism did he receive free media coverage? Explain what made this free media coverage possible. Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is for the lead where we summarize significant points. The details are in the article.- Mr X 🖋

(edit conflict) @Bus stop: Once again, you are arguing about something that has already been discussed and decided upon in previous threads. The lede is summary of the article, and the article discusses this matter here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Then obviously leave it out of the lede, MrX. The reader should not be told he received "extensive free media coverage" without further explanation immediately following that assertion. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That material already has consensus. Feel free to start a new RfC or discussion if you think it should be removed. This is not the place.- Mr X 🖋 16:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Support change as proposed by Scjessey. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Didn't every candidate receive "free media coverage"? I mean, the media was covering the election, no?--MONGO (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned by MrX above - this is not particularly the place for that discussion. However, I believe to answer your question, "free media coverage" is best defined in this article, as such: Like all candidates, he benefits from what is known as earned media: news and commentary about his campaign on television, in newspapers and magazines, and on social media. Earned media typically dwarfs paid media in a campaign. The big difference between Mr. Trump and other candidates is that he is far better than any other candidate — maybe than any candidate ever — at earning media.. It's also discussed here, here, and here. My support !vote was purely made in the scope of a re-wording of content that already exists, and to change that content would likely require a separate RfC. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Again—if you can't explain it, you don't include it (in the lede). Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't need explanation. It's already cited in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It makes little sense to say he "received extensive free media coverage" without additionally saying what arrangement made this possible. I realize it is "cited in the article" but the lede also needs an explanation because that is a surprising assertion. It raises a question. The answer to that implicitly raised question should be supplied in the lede even if only by brief allusion to the mechanism that facilitates the "extensive free media coverage". Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It does need explanation or expansion in the lede. It was absolutely not a "surprising assertion" to anyone in 2015-2016 who had a pulse. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey—it makes no sense to say he "entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage because "free media" includes traditional media when the reference is to social media. In this source we read "Trump's canny use of social media helped elect him" and "his strategic use of social media propelled him to the presidency" and "Trump, who according to Reuters tweeted more than any other candidate in the presidential race, amassed 4 million more followers on Twitter than Hillary Clinton and 5 million more on Facebook" and "The social media company SocialFlow calculated during the campaign that Trump was getting more than three times more free exposure on social media than Clinton". Trump himself said "The fact that I have such power in terms of numbers with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., I think it helped me win all of these races where they're spending much more money than I spent". Repeatedly, in the body of the article, as well as in the lede of the article, the reference is to "free media coverage". That is not precise enough, in fact it is misleading. All of those references should be changed to "free social media coverage". I realize we have a section in the article called Social media and a separate article called Donald Trump on social media. But that does not excuse the repeated references to "free media" when what is meant is "free social media". Let us be precise in what we are saying. Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"Free media" does not mean "social media" at all. "Free media" is any media you get that you don't pay for. Because Trump continuously said outrageous stuff, he got extensive media coverage that his opponents did not get. Anyway, we already discussed this and the "free media" language has consensus. We are you re-litigating it? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Hunterm267...I see my outdent made it look like I was replying to your vote! but was actually just addressing the choice of wording. Regardless, I thank you for the expansion on this matter but also agree with Bus stop that this might not be understood as a lede issue unless we footnote it.--MONGO (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2018 (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.

Messed up references in the "Efforts to impeach" section

User:Briancua: With this edit you replaced the existing section on impeachment efforts with a copy-paste of the lede paragraph from Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. When you did that, you imported a whole bunch of partial references (#727, 728, 729, 730, 731, 732) without their actual link. Please go the the Efforts to impeach Donald Trump article, find the actual reference links, and bring them here, so we won’t have all those reference links saying "Cite error: The named reference Independent-1-20-2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." Either that, or else put the section back the way it was. I have already fixed references 733, 734, 735, and 739, but I’m done. --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Beat you by 51⁄2 hours.[22] ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that now. You beat me, but it isn't fixed yet. :-( If they don't do it, I'll restore a version of the original first few sentences. I have improved the later part of the paragraph so I wouldn't like to see it go totally back to the way it was. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've fixed the rest. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I have further simplified the section. See what you think. — JFG ^talk 09:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

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

Please consider adding to section 2.3 the following:

Donald Trump’s personal charity repeatedly and willfully broke state and federal laws by engaging in a decade-long pattern of self-dealing that culminated in illegal coordination with his political campaign, New York alleged in a scathing lawsuit. He is accused of rampant misconduct by using the charity as one of his personal checkbooks, directing funds meant for needy causes to settle business and personal debts, boost his political aspirations and benefit his namesake company, the Trump Organization. He also filed false statements to the Internal Revenue Service, according to the suit. Barbara Underwood, the New York State’s attorney general, is seeking to dissolve the charity and personally penalize Trump and three of his children. She said she also sent referral letters to the IRS and the Federal Election Commission for further investigations of possible violations of federal law.

The sources for this info is as follows:

1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-14/trump-foundation-accused-in-n-y-lawsuit-of-violating-charity-law 2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/14/trump-charity-sued-latest-new-york-attorney-general-violations 3. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/nyregion/trump-foundation-lawsuit-attorney-general.html 4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/14/the-president-of-the-united-states-was-just-accused-of-widespread-charity-fraud/?utm_term=.0433c8dff78d 2606:A000:7444:C400:D858:97A3:7AE2:51AF (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the charity is already in the article including the NY suit, in a more neutral manner. O3000 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm marking this as "answered", which doesn't preclude further comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Bias

Withdrawn by OP. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

This article is very biased. While there are questionable things that he says and the 24/7 outrage that has been on going in the media should not be happening here. Much of what is listed as negatives toward the Trump glaringly pointed and is also debatable. This article is passing judgement on his stances based on contributors attitude toward the topic.

Wikipedia is better than this. CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@CaptainQuizBowl: Comments like this are too vague. Please point to something specific that you think is biased. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be for hit jobs. That's the media and they are very good at it. Concrete, accurate, and expansive are the hallmarks of Wikipedia. I have no problem referencing the negatives about him that pass muster. This seems more like hearsay, which is the greatest problem of modern news. Let's not join the fray. Wikipedia is the greatest repository of information for mankind. Let's keep it that way CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@CaptainQuizBowl: So then you can't pick out any one specific thing as being biased. I tried. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Example for Mubo

Fact-checking organizations have denounced Trump for making a record number of false statements compared to other candidates.[393][394][395] At least four major publications—Politico, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times—have pointed out lies or falsehoods in his campaign statements, with the Los Angeles Times saying that "Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has".[396]

This is the second place I see reference to his false statements.

Can we see information added showing this and compare it to when he was simply making a point. As it is apart of his style, this would be pertinent to the article CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how one would do this. What you call "simply making a point", many would call "lying". If he wanted to make a point, he could try to do so while telling the truth. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

As I stated, the article references twice his false statements or the facts checks. It's clearly painting a picture of bias in this regard. Given the political nature of fact check organizations, I'm surprised it is refrenced here where the facts are supposed to be. I'd be happy to supply an article discussing the pitfalls of fact checkers CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The statements in the article are correctly attributed to various reputable WP:RS who performed fact checks. That is not indicative of bias at Wikipedia, but could be contrued as bias at those sources — this is why Wikipedia attributes those views to them. If you want to counter such bias, the only avenue is to provide sources which paint a different picture. Editors working here for years have not seen any yet. — JFG ^talk 09:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Politically comments made by pundits anywhere is a hard sell as reliable source. By very definition they deal in facts. Was Fox News used as a reliable source in the Obama article? Is Obama's false statements made while pushing through the ACA highlighted in Obama's article? No, because both are political discourse and do not belong in a place where facts should reign. Edit history of this article shows a push to paint Trump as a rascist and liar. For the most part, the Consensus has kept much of that conjecture out. But the repeated hints as both items colors this article as bias. The media has lost its way over Trump. Wikipedia is above that. CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, feel free to make concrete suggestions for improvement. Whataboutism regarding Obama and Fox will lead nowhere. — JFG ^talk 11:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, if your argument is that the article is biased because fact checkers aren't accurate, politics-related articles on Wikipedia are not for you. It also shows that Trump/FOX attacks on neutral media are working, with public perception shifting toward a false balance. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sad. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Your saying Fox News is effective? I'm referring to an information article stating that Trump makes false statements as facts based on political attacks under the guise of neutral news is not appropriate or necessarily accurate. One can easily find political articles that makes assertions of an opponent as the big bad wolf. My stance is that this isn't the way such a point of view needs to be conveyed. Political attacks poised as facts is bias.

I have no qualms of the discussion within the article about the views of his false statements, I believe it to be an appropriate topic, but without any retort places this as a negative judgement on the subject. If this is to be allowed here than it should be elsewhere. Shouldn't Wikipedia be neutral?

I propose that the assertions of false statements and fact checks be removed until the a neutral way of addressing this subject can be found.

Wikipedia should be about facts not point of view and here only one point of view, his bitter opponents, are presented in the matter. Once again, this is bias.

CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@CaptainQuizBowl: If others want to spend their time explaining Wikipedia content policy to someone who hasn't bothered to read much of it or gain any experience with it before criticizing the collaborative work product of many experienced editors who have put in that effort, that's their prerogative. I don't, but I'll just say that your arguments are completely at odds with policy. We don't need a link to WP:NPOV, we know very well where it is. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

So presenting political sole political points of view against a controversial subject is not bias. Perhaps we need to look up a definition. I would recommend it. Criticism is not allowed? I thought that was the purpose of the discussion page and I have been respectful. Furthermore, this isn't my first go round with contributing to Wikipedia. It was about 10 years ago as a college student studying history. Career got in the way. CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I was told to make a proposal so I did. CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess your proposal is that you want us to remove the assertions about falsehoods. Not going to happen. That aspect of his personality - repeatedly saying things that are simply, factually false - is so far out of the norm, even for a politician, that multiple Neutral Reliable Sources have called attention to it over and over. It's as much a part of his persona as being from New York or having five children. You can see that reporting, cited to the Falsehoods section in the article. Neutrality does not require us to ignore the verified reporting of Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

CaptainQuizBowl, please consider this a formal warning. I know that you are a new editor, but you really need to read and ponder the discretionary sanctions notice at the top of this page, and on your own talk page. You have now made 13 comments here, all which show a lack of understanding of our policies and guidelines, especially Identifying reliable sources. You are making the same point over and over again, but have not yet brought forth a single reliable source for discussion. Please change your approach now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Why would I need a source when disussing the way information is presented here? As I stated, I have no problem with the topic but it is biased as it is one sided. I'm done with this topic because there isn't anyone that is interested in discussing the bias tone in this article. CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2018 (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.

Questions on consensus items

Is it possible to add #7 to every politicians Wikipedia articles? CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The place to suggest this would be the talk pages of relevant politicians. — JFG ^talk 09:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I think #21 is still in the article CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Correction. It was speculation on physical health CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Right. Nothing to change. — JFG ^talk 09:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead include a sentence about Trump's racial stance?

Close requested.[23] — JFG ^talk 17:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Close review requested. — JFG ^talk 20:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Close was endorsed at WP:AN. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a weak consensus in favor of the proposal.

I am not much impressed by the arguments from some of the opposers (MONGO, JFG, GW) all of whom has been excellently rebutted by Snow.I similarly fail to parse PackMeceng's last line, in light of the abundance of reliable sourcing on the issue and some arguments by the last !voter, which can be assigned as OR.

That leaves us with WP:LABEL (which does make an exception in cases of abundance of reporting by reliable sources) and WP:WEIGHT.

A rough weight-based re-count of heads do lead to a consensus for inclusion.But, feel free to tweak the wording, as necessary by normal t/p discourse.∯WBG^converse 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the second paragraph of the lead include a sentence summarizing Trump's history of racially charged comments and racially motivated actions?

Specifically, something like:

Many of his comments and actions have been perceived by some as racially charged.

Sources

"If it were a one-time comment, an inadvertent insensitivity, it would still have stirred a firestorm. But Mr. Trump has said so many things on so many occasions that have rubbed the raw edges of race in America that they have raised the larger issue. "
— The New York Times

"The president’s approach to race has by many accounts damaged America’s standing in the world and complicated his foreign policy."
— The New York Times

"Mr. Trump’s history of racially inflammatory episodes traces back to his first days in the public eye. "
— The New York Times

"As he became more of a public figure, Mr. Trump waded into racially charged controversies that periodically erupted in New York. "
— The New York Times

"Trump has a long record as a provocateur on matters of race and ethnicity."
— Fortune

"You don’t even have to look into Trump’s heart to see his racism. You only have to look at all the things he’s done and said over the years – from the early Seventies, when he settled with the Justice Department over accusations of housing discrimination, to Monday, when just hours after his speech news broke he is considering pardoning anti-immigrant sheriff Joe Arpaio."
— Rolling Stone

"He has built a legacy of race-baiting throughout his career – from his apartment buildings in the outer boroughs right into the White House."
— Rolling Stone

"President Donald Trump’s long history with race is complicated."
— PBS

"While Trump’s actions have landed on both sides of racial currents, his public record depicts a man who most often moves in one direction: overlooking racial sensitivity and concerns in the name of fighting “political correctness.”"
— PBS

"Most Americans think President Trump is a racist, according to a new poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research."
— The Washington Post

"From the moment he launched his candidacy by attacking Mexican immigrants as criminals, President Trump has returned time and again to language that is racially charged and, to many, insensitive and highly offensive."
— Los Angeles Times

"Trump, who is desperate to distract his base from his myriad failures of policy, from health care to immigration, is perfectly capable of devising his racist rhetoric all on his own."
— The New Yorker

"Trump, rather than seeking to end the controversy, worked at length to fan it. Even after Obama released his “long-form” birth certificate, meanwhile, Trump continued to spread birther innuendo. The statement is at once a welcome recognition and also obviously too little, too late, after Trump spent five years fanning the racist conspiracy theory."
— The Atlantic

"World leaders, leading newspapers, and celebrities have used unprecedented language to describe a possible future president: "Racist", "repellent", "ignorant"."
— BBC

Please indicate whether you support or oppose this wording (or very similar) being added to the lead. If you wish to propose different wording, please start a separate RfC. Thank you.- Mr X 🖋 18:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ Conditional support if this RFC fails. Statement should be
Many of his comments and actions have been racially charged.
Enough sources state this, that Wikipedia should just state this.Casprings (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Casprings: Do you want to start a parallel RfC to see if there is support for that?- Mr X 🖋 18:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Done.Casprings (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Support - It's hard for me to get fully behind this proposal without more specific wording, knowing how many different directions the basic proposed template could be built out in. What I will say with more certainty is that I think Mr. X has made their case, vis-a-vis sourcing, that something of this sort is WP:DUE for the lead. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, Mr. X, which four sources were you thinking for the cite here? Snow ^{let's rap} 20:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, probably the first four (The New York Times, Fortune, Rolling Stone, and PBS).- Mr X 🖋 21:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Copied from the second RfC below: Oppose the use of "racially charged" per WP:EUPHEMISM. It's just a watered-down euphemism for "racist". [24] GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

A) Forgive the strong statement, but I think your categorical/per se description is nonsensical; this is clearly a matter of context and some sources will invariably be using the term as a hedging mechanisms while others may genuinely be suggesting that Trump is not a racist but has stirred the pot (intentional or not) on race--and all manner of variations in between. However, I doubt I can shift your perspective on it, with such a strong !vote. Anyway, more important is B) the "policy" you cite (WP:EUPHEMISM isn't even a content inclusion policy and is completely irrelevant here: it is a tiny little piece of MoS that is concerned with word choice, and thus has no weight when measured against an inclusion issue that needs be judged under WP:V and WP:NPOV.

Euphemisms in fact are fair game in any case where the same or similar language is being used by sources. It's not our place to decide what is coy language disguising a deeper criticism; we evaluate the sources on their face value without filtering them through our own meaning making and assumptions about what the sources "really meant"; that's WP:Original research. Frankly, a lot of sources do say "racist" explicitly, but that is clearly a non-starter for this particular article. So I think its ridiculous to say that this topic shouldn't be mentioned at all just because the proposed language leans more on sources that are a bit more tactful and reserved. Those are the one that are more appropriate here, given the BLP concerns. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Support - This sentence is backed by numerous sources. It is accurate, since it addresses widespread perceptions rather than objective facts. I don't accept that "racially charged" is necessarily a euphemism for racism, but perhaps some use it that way.- Mr X 🖋 02:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Mentioned below, perhaps there is a better way to frame this. Racist, racially charged, both the same really and the media seems to always play connect the dots when they report these comments and twitter feeds. While it seems forbidden to mention other wording here (oddly) it would be best in keeping with BLP that we stay above the medias efforts to sensationalize and sell copy. Without violating OR it would be best we instead agree with a less condemning approach.--MONGO (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is is possible to decide on our own subjective interpretaition which is a less more or condemning approach without violating WP:OR by outright definition. Sources are completely allowed to "connect the dots" for themselves and arrive at conclusions. That's what we rely on them for in most instances, and as Wikipedia editors, we don't get to interject our subjective assessments of how well they accomplished that task. Reporting their conclusions is not only not against WP:NPOV, it is a defining requirement of that policy, if there is sufficient WP:WEIGHT to justify the inclusion. Deciding for ourselves that "the media" has "sensaionalized" something is an act of pure editorializing and original research, and not something we are permitted to do in our analysis of whether or not to include content. We faithfully represent the sources, we don't decide for ourselves which ones missed the plot. That's WP:POV by the back door. See for example Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources and WP:NPOVS. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Don’t be silly. Clearly contrary to WP:LEAD guidances for the opening paragraph, does not pass general guidance of WP:BLP to write conservatively, let alone the specific BLPLEAD or WP:RACIST guidances. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - I've spent a decent amount of time weighing my opinion on this addition. I've considered both statements MONGO made below (regarding our limitations given the drastically polarized media reports on the subject), and Snow Rise's reply above. We, as editors of Wikipedia, are tasked with producing neutral, verifiable content that can be referenced in sources. I don't disagree that the addition proposed here can be verified through the sources provided. However, I would also argue that the scope of the material published by sources varies widely based on the sources you read. For example, after a short search, I was able to find two articles that explicitly contradict sources above, such as here and here. For that reason, although I am able to see and weigh both sides, I think that the best solution would simply be to exclude such content from the LEAD of the article altogether. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – This proposal is just WP:WEASELing around consensus #24 which established that the lede should not allude to Trump's purported racism. It's also awful grammar: "Many [things] have been perceived by some as [qualifier]"?? Just frankly say "He is widely considered racist". (But that obviously doesn't have consensus, so say nothing.) — JFG ^talk 19:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I just don't get this "We either have to call him a racist or never, ever mention that he has said something about race that makes people uncomfortable--we can entertain nothing in between!" argument. I think it's literally the single least rational and least policy consistent of all conceivable editorial approaches to this situation. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(Discussion continues below) — JFG ^talk 22:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per my arguments in RfC #2 and I will now explain why I oppose saying "perceived". I don't see why we should include public opinion on individual issues in the lead section of the biography article. See Barack Obama for how Public image of Barack Obama is summarized in it. wumbolo ^^^ 12:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose For a few reasons. First comes off as WP:WEASEL, if you want to call him a racist in the lead just purpose that. Along those lines is also goes against WP:LABEL, clearly calling a BLP racist in the lead falls into contentious label. Finally fails WP:NPOV again can we just quit calling everyone we disagree with a racist alt-right so and so? PackMecEng (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Support Were he not in politics, then it would probably be a no. But to not mention it in the lead when the overwhelming evidence is that he speaks racism, fans racial hatred and bigotry, and in the role of president has forced the US as a state to engage in racist policies.... Well they will need to invent a new word as whitewashing really doesnt cut it. Its going to be the defining legacy of his presidency. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Conditional support if Caspring's RFC fails. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 02:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Support This subject has received a tremendous amount of RS coverage and is most certainly leadworthy. I agree with Caspring's proposed simplification. The described by some is unnecessarily wordy and a violation of WP:YESPOV (Avoid stating facts as opinions). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - as stated. I would support if it were simplified and read more like "Some of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged." Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose (Summoned by bot) I'm not opposed to the statement but to its proposed placement, which is far too high in the article per WEIGHT. What I think needs to be discussed is whether it should be in the lead at all. My inclination at this point is no. Coretheapple (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Support; obviously well-cited and reflects the content of the article. Regarding WP:BLP, it only requires that we have high-quality sources - we're required to reflect them even when they say things that could cast the article's subject in a negative light. Regarding WP:RACIST, the entire purpose of MOS:WORDS is to be cautious about specific wording, not to omit well-cited facts. --Aquillion (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Support; so many of the issues that he returns to time and time again (Birtherism, repeated attacks on Obama as an "African-American president", false statistics on Black crime, attacks on immigrants, attacks on public figures for being Latino or being related to Latinos, attacks on NFL racial inequality protesters, the normalizing of White Nationalists, and the labeling of various Black public figures as being of low intelligence) have an obvious racial component. The perceived racial nature of all of these fixations has been well-documented in sources and is ably covered on the Racial views of Donald Trump page. I don't see why something that has become such a staple of his presidential run and presidency should be left out of the intro. --Dankster (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose; agree with Markbassett and JFG. It would violate several policies and guidelines to insert media sensationalist suggestions of racism to a BLP. Anyway, there is good evidence he is not racist, even though he has on occasion said racially inappropriate things. If there is an addition to the lead section alluding to him being a racist then his pardoning of the black boxer jailed for having a white girlfriend should be included, per NPOV.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended comments

Hunterm267: Yes, where someone is predicating their !vote in a WP:WEIGHT analysis, that's one thing; the sources are unending here and I can see where reasonable people can come to substantially different conclusions about that. Unfortunately, as seems to be constantly happening on this page every time I respond to a random bot notice (of which I've just received my second to this article inside one week!), a lot of people are just arguing for straight up "we know better than them, so we'll judge whether the sources got the situation correct enough to be worth including", aka dyed-in-the-wool WP:original research.

That seems to be an omnipresent feature of this article (coming constantly from editors who are here to be dutiful advocates for the "its obvious" arguments of "the right" and "the left"), and I honestly don't know what to suggest can be done about it, short of some massive house cleaning to remove editors who can't keep their comments focused on fidelity with the sources, but who instead try to do the job of sources by deciding issues for themselves which are as minor as "Trump must be exposed for the lying traitor that he is" or "Trump is needlessly maligned conservative hero who must be protected from the 'lying fake news media'". Now obviously this all reflects the general divide that is out there right now and is not at all surprising, and maybe I ought not be surprised how much of it is aggregating at this particular article. But I'm still discouraged every time I arrive here and see how little challenge the original research is getting. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(Continued from survey section) — JFG ^talk 22:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I just don't get this "We either have to call him a racist or never, ever mention that he has said something about race that makes people uncomfortable--we can entertain nothing in between!" argument. I think it's literally the single least rational and least policy consistent of all conceivable editorial approaches to this situation. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain my stance in a bit more detail. Trump's comments related to race issues have been called out by hundreds of sources, no question about this. He has also been assumed to be a racist by plenty of people interpreting anything he says in the worst possible way, and that's fair game. Now, whenever a new controversial tweet or policy grabs the headlines, the whole "Trump is an awful racist" narrative comes back to the fore, with a recital of his "45-year history of racially-charged statements and actions", and editors re-launch the debate about what should be added to the lede about racism. The current proposal is just twisting words without addressing the core issue: can we call Trump racist? I sure wish we could find a neutral and consensus-approved way of describing Trump's positions on this issue, but we have not yet found any, and the proposed convoluted sentence is surely not going to pass muster. There is nothing partisan about being careful in what we state, and prior discussions have made it clear that this issue is too complex to summarize in the lede section. I will also note that Donald Trump is the only person in the whole history of the world to be granted an article about his "racial views". That is absolutely extraordinary, given the hundreds of unabashed racist people covered at length by this encyclopedia. Where are the racial views of Frederik de Klerk? Where are the racial views of Alfred Rosenberg? Where are the racial views of Hirohito and Shūmei Ōkawa? This fact alone makes me inclined to conclude that Trump only gets this special treatment because of unresolved racial tensions in the United States. There is enough subject matter there for a dozen PhD theses. I have also observed that whenever Trump does something positive towards people of other races than his own, there is virtually no media coverage, and if there is any, it's generally dismissive with the good old "I have black friends" excuse. Meanwhile, what has been lacking is serious, dispassionate commentary about Trump's relations to race issues: it's hard to find because Trump usually acts in a race-agnostic way. Your skin color does not matter to him, he looks at how you behave. Your gender does not matter to him, he looks at whether you help him. Your political party does not matter to him, he looks at whether you approve of him. Your status as a traditional ally or enemy country does not matter to him, he looks at whether you agree with him. Troubling, for sure, and I'd love to read PhD theses and history books that will be written between 2030 and 2050, instead of the clickbait news of the day. — JFG ^talk 21:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'd disagree that Trump is the only world leader discussed on the encyclopedia who has an article dedicated to his racial stances; they just tend to be labelled differently in other cases, because those racial views for some historical figures developed into outright pogroms or other state action, which tends to capture those issues under a different header. It makes sense to cover Trumps racial perspectives under a more neutral and conservative namespace, that's all. But that's a bit of red herring and not directly relevant to the current content dispute we are talking about with regard to this article. More to the point for our editorial purposes here, it's not our place to decide which reliable sources were sufficiently "dispassionate" in their analysis for us to credit their coverage as "realistic"; anytime an editor finds themselves doing that, it is almost certain that they are engaging in a kind of unpermitted WP:original research. The fact of the matter is, there are reliable sources discussion Trumps relationship to race (indeed, they surely count is in the thousands at this point, even if we excise the sources that are borderline RS) and (as a matter of the most basic widely held point of consensus in the history of this project) it is our job as Wikipedia editors to represent those sources faithfully, not filter them through our own subjective assessments and confirmation bias.

Now, I'm somewhat sympathetic to your argument that it's difficult to get this into the lead in a concise statement which does not prejudice the reader either way, but emphasis on "difficult"--not "impossible". And it's an outright false choice that we have to opt to either describe him as a "racist" or not discuss anything he has said about race whatsoever in the lead. However you parse it, this is a part of the controversy that surrounds the man as an encyclopedic topic--a huge part. And our coverage should not be overly-focused on who Trump believes himself to be or even what he tries to be; it's perfectly fair game (from a WP:WEIGHT standpoint) to say that racial issues are a part of his controversial public image. Indeed, not just fair; it's impossible to give an encyclopedic summary of the man's public life without it. So saying that we should either "call a spade for a spade" and label him a racist or say nothing at all turns every relevant policy in this area on it's head. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a very interesting conversation, thanks for your remarks. You write that we should not bind ourselves to not discuss anything he has said about race whatsoever, and I agree. There's the rap: what has Trump said about race? Think about it, go perform searches, listen to a bunch of rallies, then come back and tell me what he ever said about race. We have hundreds of people who have said a lot of things about what they imagine they can read in Trump's mind by interpreting his "dog whistles". But has Trump said anything worthy of mention? This was discussed a few months ago when the "Racial views of Donald Trump" article was taking shape. Editors had tremendous difficulty finding any racial views actually expressed by Trump (see Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 3#Recent edits - textbook SYNTH and WEASEL). All that was found were platitudes such as "I'm the least racist person you'll ever interview", "racism is evil" and "no matter the color of our skin, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots" (the latter was bizarrely mocked by one editor as alluding to heart surgery).

Incidentally, you may be on the right track with: racial issues are a part of his controversial public image. We may end up finding an appropriate formulation along these lines. — JFG ^talk 23:09, 16 July 2018 (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.

Trump/WP on Breitbart

Wikipedia: President Trump Advocate of ‘Neo-Nazi Conspiracy Theory Interesting for those who are interested in such things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in sinking into the sewage of Breitbart. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That Breitbart article does not apply here at the WP:BLP for Donald Trump. Breitbart was writing there about the White genocide conspiracy theory. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with Breitbart's premise about Trump, I can't wait for Breitbart to be blacklisted for all the manipulative fear-mongering it does. wumbolo ^^^ 13:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Where's the lie? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)