Talk:Donald Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Highlighted open discussions[edit]

Current consensus[edit]

NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per Remedy instructions and exemptions, above. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]], item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

1. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (link 1, link 2, link 3) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

2. Show birthplace as "New York City" in the infobox. No state or country. (link)

3. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (link)

4. Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

5. Use Donald Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (currently the March 2018 edition, $3.1B/766th/248th), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link 1) In the lede section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to $3.1 billion. (link 2)

6. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lede section. (link 1, link 2)

7. Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (link 1, link 2, wording shortened per link 3)

8. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (link)

9. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (link)

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (link 1, link 2)

11. The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (link)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 days, manual archival is allowed for closed discussions after 24 hours. (link)

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

15. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense.[1] No new changes should be applied without debate. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (link 5) (cancelled by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lede section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (link) (cancelled by lede section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States, before entering politics he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. See link 1, link 2, link 3 and link 4 for substance; link 5 and link 6 for minor changes. Amended by lede section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018.

18. The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "The Wharton School (B.S.inEcon.)", does not mention Fordham University. (link 1, link 2)

19. Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons, it was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (link 1 for replacement, link 2, link 3, link 4 for background) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 October 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lede section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (link 1, link 2)

21. Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (link 1, link 2)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (link)

23. The lead includes the following sentence: 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. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5) Wording updated on 6 July 2018. (link 6)

24. Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (link)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (link 1, link 2)

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

27. State that Trump "falsely claimed" that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama "birther" rumors. (link 1, link 2)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (link 1, link 2)

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

"many of his public statements were controversial or false"[edit]

See [2] (unclear, potentially misleading and unnecessary). Should it say (A) "many of his public statements were controversial or false" or (B) "many of his public statements were false"

B "false" zzz (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Extensively discussed in three discussions linked at #Current consensus item 7. I see no reason to revisit the issue at this point. ―Mandruss  08:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't see any discussion of whether to remove "controversial" in "controversial or false". The discussion was about whether to use "false". Please !vote or revert your edit [3]. zzz (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Signedzzz: If you think a word must be disputed before it has consensus, you're sadly mistaken. If the word "controversial" wasn't specifically debated in those discussions, it's because nobody had a problem with it, the entire sentence was open for discussion, and the entire sentence has consensus. I won't be reverting my revert. If other editors wish to revisit the issue, they are entitled to do so, but the sentence stays as is until there is a new consensus to change it. ―Mandruss  10:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A for two reasons: (1) Many of Trump's statements have been controversial, but not false, and (2) The exact wording we have is the result of an exhaustive discussion and solid consensus. No need to change now, although perhaps in the future we can expand it: "many of his public statements were controversial or false, and frequently described as 'lies'." -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
What do you think "controversial" means in this case? Do you think it is clear to the reader? It isn't to me. zzz (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • comment "Controversial" is a euphemism in this context and conveys no specific meaning to our readers. What RS state is that Trump's statements are misleading or false, and factcheckers worldwide have identified an unprecedented rate of such statements. We also have many events related to this, such as Kellyanne/Spicer's "alternative facts" that has entered the English lexicon, and the abundance of RS reporting that those around Trump feel compelled to support his misrepresentations for fear of reprisal in the alternative. And we have numerous reports of egregious and widely noted and mocked instances of such support, e.g. Chief Kelly's lies about Rep. Kelly [4], Doc. Ronny Jackson's press briefing debacle [5], and others. So without discarding the valid RfC that received broad participation and withstood various denials of these facts, we should certainly consider updating it with additional text, now that we have the benefit of even more data and RS coverage and discussion of it. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment We shouldn't be saying this in Wikipedia's voice at all. "...controversial and false" are fine, but not in Wiki-voice - which is what's currently there. Needs to be reworded in a neutral fashion. Otherwise, Wikipedia is making a pronouncement about his statements. That's the opposite of what policy states in WP:WikiVoice at WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc, for example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." -- ψλ 16:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • If we go that way - let's call it Plan B - then we would need to accurately reflect the bulk of mainstream reports, which say much much harsher things than the current article text and are apt to seem rather jarring. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know what purpose is served by saying that a partisan figure's statements have been controversial; that pretty much comes with the territory. However, Trump's frequent mendacity is unusual, even for an American partisan; widely confirmed by reliable sources; rarely if ever denied by reliable sources; and even confirmed in some writing attributed to Trump himself (the "honest exaggeration" stuff). There's no good reason to leave that aspect of his reputation/character out of articles where it is relevant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • comment The previous discussions have really focused on the word “false” because that word is controversial, and the word “controversial” isn’t controversial. Frankly, these are two quite different concepts and I don’t think they belong in the same sentence. Lots of politicians take controversial positions. Lots of politicians have an iffy relationship with truth. But, reliable sources tell us that Trump is nearly in a class by himself. Also, I think they are treated separately by the sources. So, yes it could be argued that this is a separate discussion. But, is it important enough for another RfC, during which some editors will start arguing about “false” again? O3000 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A – This has been discussed to death, and nothing has changed in Trump's communication style, or in evaluations of his truthiness. — JFG talk 21:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    Talk about begging the question... What's changed is 1. Documentation of hundreds of significant false statements by factcheckers in many countries, and 2. Having been in office now for 18 months, Trump is now lying about his actions as US President and about the actions and policies of the US Government. RS reports have intensified because they find that these misrepresentations have vastly more far-reaching significance than personal boasts and false claims about personal prowess or past business accomplishment. Please review RS analysis and reporting and offer an alternative that reflects the mainstream view. SPECIFICO talk 12:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, and the qualification of Trump's statements as president have also been discussed to death, with the same outcome of "Gee, he's the same guy who campaigned. Yay! For shame! (pick one)". No appetite to revisit the issue. — JFG talk 14:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    You're of course under no obligation to present reasoned arguments that address the central issues, but the !votes of such editors will have little/no weight in the close of this matter. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    That's not a change, it's more of the same. I oppose revisiting every time he lies about something new and those lies get factchecked. Further, if this is so earth-shatteringly important, it also was before the OP brought it up, so why did you wait for him to raise the issue? ―Mandruss  15:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The change is that he is now in power, per my comment above. RS report the far-reaching societal, military, and economic policy consequences of his lies, whereas pre-election this was a personality or behavioral trait. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A. I agree with others above. Many of his statements were controversial but not outright false. Kerberous (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A per longstanding and many-times discussed consensus, as well as per JFG, Scjessey, and Kerberous. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • MelanieN, do you feel that "controversial" is related to "false" except in cases where the controversy is related to the lie itself? I continue to read "controversial" here as some kind of euphemism or equivocation. After all, political speech is largely controversial by its nature. Otherwise it wouldn't be political, it would be operating procedures or statute. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Controversial and false are two different things. His speech is noteworthy for both. --MelanieN alt (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree they are two different things. However, I think the current text suggests that the controversy is about whether they are true or false, but in fact, to continue with the idea that they're 2 different things, the controversial ones are ones like "I'm calling off war games" or "there are good people on both sides" -- but the juxtaposition of these 2 things in the article text suggests that the controversies were things like whether Obama is an alien, whether he had the largest inaugural crowd ever, and other demonstrably false statements. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A as per above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A per MelanieN alt. ―Mandruss  02:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I'm late, but Wikipedia is supposed to (if not, it should be) unbiased towards both sources and subjects. Just because most people (including me) hate him, it shouldn't exist on the page without a reliable source. And it's unsourced, so there technically isn't any proof given regarding him saying false stuff, although it's obviously true, something like that needs a source, which is currently lacking. 108.30.110.252 (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is about a sentence in the lede. Of course it is unsourced in the lede; the lede is supposed to summarize the article and generally does not include sources. But it is well sourced in the article, see Donald Trump#False statements. We would certainly not include something like this in the article without significant reliable sourcing. --MelanieN alt (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Possibly A with mod - might "criticized as controversial or false" convey things more neutrally and more accurately as something from a source rather than saying it in wikivoice? The article text actually does not seem to support "controversial" at all, though there exist articles about that. The article text also does not support "false" as being significant enough to be in LEAD. Cites supporting "Controversial" are separate from those supporting "false", so this may need a cite at each of those two words. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion for the lede, not the body. Wiki voice is perfectly acceptable when faced with an undeniable, universally agreed upon truth. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think this is ready to be closed with a fairly substantial support for "A". -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 16 July 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?[edit]

Should the lead include the following sentence?

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

- MrX 🖋 11:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


  • Yes - Trump's family separation policy is still receiving a enormous amount of international coverage in the news[6] 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. - MrX 🖋 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 toNo. 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?- MrX 🖋 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."[7] 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 [8] 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.- MrX 🖋 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.- MrX 🖋 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. - MrX 🖋 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.- MrX 🖋 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 [9].--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)
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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Process discussion: Immigration[edit]

@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.- MrX 🖋 12:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
A discussion about RfCs and AfDs. Not related to resolving this RfC.- MrX 🖋 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 (talkcontribs) 12:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement removal[edit]

Already being discussed in an earlier thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 16 July 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.

The third paragraph of the introductory section states "many of his public statements were controversial or false", which isn't necessarily true, this seems a bit biased, and knowing Wikipedia is a place that should be 100% free of any bias, this statement should be removed or re-worded. 108.30.110.252 (talk) 9 July 2018

Maybe it's asking too much to expect editors new to an article to do a little poking around in its archives before posting. I don't know, but a quick scan of the table of contents? See #"many of his public statements were controversial or false" above. ―Mandruss  01:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased toward reliable sources, not toward article subjects. TFD (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
That shouldn't matter. Wikipedia is supposed to (if not, it should be) unbiased towards both sources and subjects. Just because most people (including me) hate him, it shouldn't exist on the page without a reliable source. It's unsourced, by the way. 108.30.110.252 (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it was intended to characterize the cites situation generally rather than a close paraphrase of just one cite. Could a rephrase help the concern ? "many of his his public statements were criticized as controversial or false" seems able to find cites about controversial statements, and seperately cites that ping parts as false. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:41, 11 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2018[edit]

In the introduction, the sentence "His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false" shows very clear political bias on the part of the editor: I recommend taking out the "or false" part as it is clearly a case of the writer's bias. When I read a Wikipedia article I expect to read facts, not someone's overt bias against a prominent figure.

Quite frankly, as a reader I am offended reading statements like this: it is as if the writer is trying to tell me how to think instead of presenting unbiased information to me, it also makes me question the overall truth value and validity of this page. 96.236.208.42 (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Gain consensus for any changes first, but the label "false" is widely used by reliable sources and doesn't need removal unless there's consensus to do so EvergreenFir (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
You might also read the thread immediately preceding this one. Wikipedia's difficult mission is to accurately reflect reliable sources, not to avoid offending readers. ―Mandruss  06:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
My concern about the inclusion of "or false" isn't that it's biased or incorrect. (While I haven't looked at the sources I trust there has been sufficient vetting of the multiple sources supporting the claim.) My concern is that it is bad English. I suspect any competent English teacher would be marking this up with red pencil if it appeared in a student paper.
Virtually all campaigners have a finite budget for media and that budget is not enough to buy all the media they would like. Thus, generally speaking, candidates are happy when they get free media coverage (with some exceptions which we will get to very shortly.) Candidates often have to worry about whether to make bland statements which don't say very much (to avoid turning off potential voters) or to make more controversial statements which will simultaneously turn off some voters but attract some others, and ideally will generate some free media coverage. It is without dispute that Trump was at the controversial end of the spectrum, so the statement that many of his public statements were controversial is support for the "extensive free media coverage" aspect of the sentence.
False statements are a different kettle of fish. I'll repeat—I'm not disputing the word, but while controversial statements lead to free media coverage that is almost always positive, false statements are little more problematic. If a candidate makes a statement that gains media coverage solely so the media can refute it and paint the candidate as a liar, this technically might generate free media coverage but the implication of the rest of the sentence is that free media coverage is desirable. While there is a famous statement that any coverage is positive as long as you get your name spelled correctly, I doubt that experts fully concur.
Actually, OR is relevant, but I suggest you have it almost exactly backwards. The linkage between "controversial" and "free media" does have some missing steps, and argually takes some OR to link the two, though it is my opinion that this reach isn't too far, the problem is that linking "false" statements with "free Media" does require some OR (or the filling in of the missing steps), so I object to the juxtaposition of "false" and "free media". I don't know why you repeated that it is a fact that he makes false statements - I don't think I could have been clearer, but I'll repeat. Duh yeah, of course. My issue isn't that it's false (so to speak) but that the juxtaposition of false statements with free media is a false linkage.
Arguably, a statement that is controversial and turns out to be false might generate some free media coverage and it might be a net positive if there is substantial coverage at the time of the statement, but less coverage of the rebuttal of the claim. In some cases, statements by candidates are covered only because they have been shown to be false. It's hard to imagine this being positive.
In summary, the sentence without the closing two words is relevant news or the an undeniably supportable. Adding "or false" leads to a whole host of questions that need answering, which is clearly beyond the scope of a summary sentence in the lead.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It strikes me that you're getting too deep into analysis and possibly OR here. It's just a fact that he makes more false statements than have been documented for any other politician. So we just need a simple descriptive mention of that in the lead. As I and others have discussed above, the juxtaposition with "controversial" is unfortunate for reasons you allude to in your comment. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, OR is relevant, but I suggest you have it almost exactly backwards. The linkage between "controversial" and "free media" does have some missing steps, and argually takes some OR to link the two, though it is my opinion that this reach isn't too far, the problem is that linking "false" statements with "free Media" does require some OR (or the filling in of the missing steps), so I object to the juxtaposition of "false" and "free media". I don't know why you repeated that it is a fact that he makes false statements - I don't think I could have been clearer, but I'll repeat. Duh yeah, of course. My issue isn't that it's false (so to speak) but that the juxtaposition of false statements with free media is a false linkage.
The main article fleshes out the false statement nicely. It also discusses controversial statements (although the coverage is more meandering, the problem is the infusion of the two disparate ideas in the same sentence.
I'm simply observing that the sentence attempts to make two unrelated points in one sentence. That doesn't strike me as "too deep into analysis".--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I submit that any related discussion should be at #"many of his public statements were controversial or false". This thread and the preceding one both violated the principle of not fragmenting discussions, both were very forgivable from inexperienced editors, and both were immediately corrected for benefit of not only those editors but all others participating on this page. Sphilbrick, it's beyond me why you continued here. ―Mandruss  02:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I apologize if you have created some structure I missed. I'm not a regular here, and have no idea how I should have known that my comment belonged elsewhere. Nor do I yet see how I should have known, it is standard in many places to close a discussion which is in the wrong place. Why not here? How are editors who rarely visit here supposed to know about unwritten rules?

I've now read the link you provided and suggest it was incompetently constructed. If I were presented with a choice between (A) "many of his public statements were controversial or false" or (B) "many of his public statements were false" I'd probably go with (A) as well. Is it true that "many of his public statements were controversial or false"? Of course. So why on earth am I objecting (I hope you are asking)? Because the question asked omits that the entire sentence is:

His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false.

That construction leaves the impression that the post semi-colon points relate to the pre-semi-colon assertion. I am in full agreement that controversial statements led to extensive and net positive free media coverage, but I don't think one can say the same about false statements, the two concepts deserve discussion, but they should be separated. I see that one contributor to the discussion (O3000 ) made that point, but I think it got lost, becuase the beginning of the sentence was not mentioned.

That attempt to identify consensus should be thrown out because it was ill-formed. Let's start over with the full sentence. If a consensus wants to supported incompetent English phrasing, Ill not fight the consensus, but let's at least have the discussion. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Second paragraph[edit]

The second paragraph of the lead needs a make over. It's far too focused on Trump's persona during the campaign, and it notably omits the fact that he continues to emit falsehoods, and that a great many of his actions and comments are controversial. There also needs be some mention of the public perception of his racial views, along the lines of the first sentence of the 'Racial views' section. Any thoughts on how we can update this paragraph? - MrX 🖋 16:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. As has previously been discussed on this page, it is a very different matter for a candidate to make false statements and even to pander to some religious or ideological voter factions. RS discuss this behavior as being far more significant when an officeholder, POTUS, is lying about the operations, laws, and policies of the US government and his administration. RS also increasingly discuss this as a personality trait or a signature style of Trump as a public figure, clearly making such article text important for this biography article. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see any problem. This paragraph is the one that has received the most scrutiny, to the point that almost every word has been adjudicated by community consensus; in particular, mentioning racial views has been rejected (#24 Do not include allegations of racism in the lead.) Since the relevant discussion in February, I don't see much new information about such views or criticism thereof that would change the consensus. But obviously, you can try. — JFG talk 17:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
No, "racial views" was not rejected; "Allegations of racism" was.- MrX 🖋 17:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Come on, you know damn well that all the talk about his purported "racial views" is a collection of allegations of racism. I don't see a way to mention racial views without alleging racism. If we want to quote his "racial views", all we can say is that he said he's "the least racist person", and that is not very convincing, is it? — JFG talk 19:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
No it's not, and we have been through this before. We can simply say that Trump's words and actions have been described as racially charged at various point in his life, and increasingly so as he pursued and attained the office of president, that is backed by excellent sources that have covered it in exhaustive depth.- MrX 🖋 20:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
That's the definition of allegation. עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't many of his public statements were controversial or false and His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. suffice? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't clear in the OP. The current wording is about his campaign. We're way past that.- MrX 🖋 17:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Assuming someone is willing to pull together enough solid RS links, I'll support taking the "controversial or false" thing out of campaign context, possibly by moving it to the end of the para and changing "were" to "have been". But given the highly controversial nature I think that warrants a separate thread. ―Mandruss  17:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's simply not credible on the one hand for us to decry RECENTISM and then on the other hand to call "consensus" on stale and outdated content that needs to be recast to reflect our subsequent and current knowledge and available sources. Let's get to the substance here and not "head 'em off at the pass". The current content is stale. BTW, to repeat myself, I'd be fine blowing up the "consensus list" if it's going to be a crutch or barrier that prevents article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

To repeat myself, please discuss changes to established process separately. ―Mandruss  18:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The point is -- let's not use some list as an excuse to canonize and codify inaccurate Wikipedia articles. SPECIFICO talk 18:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
My point is that that's off topic in a content discussion, and it will not be resolved in one, so why distract from the content discussion by even mentioning it? ―Mandruss  18:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Because an editor cited list #24 to deflect from conversation about improving the article and I rebutted that. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Your assumption of bad faith is noted. Look who's deflecting about process, in thread after thread after thread. — JFG talk 19:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry SPECIFICO, I don't see that. I do see an editor citing #24 because that's established process at this article. I also see you casting aspersions, with zero support from other editors, yet again. Speaking only for myself, you're becoming quite tiresome. ―Mandruss  19:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The list of consensus items is so that editors don't boldly edit over existing consensus. Besides, #24 is not what we're talking about. Let's stay on topic.- MrX 🖋 19:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
There's a novel idea. Stay on topic. ―Mandruss  19:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Rough draft 1

Commentators have described Trump's political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. Many of his public statements have been false or controversial, and many have been perceived as racially motivated. Since his childhood, he has been described as brash and bombastic—personal characteristics that helped further his business and political goals. Trump was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, become 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.

Putting this draft out there as a thought starter to get the ball rolling.- MrX 🖋 20:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

His childhood??? — JFG talk 20:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yesss. If you ever have a chance, read some of the excellent 600+ sources already in the article that cover his military school and college years. - MrX 🖋 20:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I know all this, but since when do we mention childhood/teen observations in BLP ledes? If we just want to convey an impression of Trump's character, we already say he revels in controversy; whether it "helped further his business and political goals" is a matter of opinion, therefore totally undue. — JFG talk 21:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I Oppose this rough draft and the other suggestions here. In particular, I strongly oppose putting anything about his racial views or public perception of them in the lede. I also oppose the description of his personality as "brash and bombastic". We have nothing like this in lede of other biographies about presidents, and offhand I don't see anything about it in the article text here, which is the only place we could even consider adding it. To make an obvious point based on WP:LEDE, proposing to add it to the lede without any support from the text is a non-starter. If someone wants to start a separate discussion about moving the "controversial or false" material out of the campaign paragraph I am willing to look at that. And just to clarify: I assume you are not proposing to delete the opening sentence of that paragraph, "Trump entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries." --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    The lead should cover significant points, irrespective o whether they have already been written into the body o the article. His brashness and bombasticness are an important thread in this biographical tapestry. 20:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talkcontribs)
Per WP:LEDE: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. ... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. ... Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Come on, this is Wikipedia 101. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
How many times do I have to say that the draft is a thought starter? It is not proposed to be plunked into the article as is. Helpful contributions to improving the second paragraph are welcomed.- MrX 🖋 21:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the first sentence is detail that doesn't belong in the lead. - MrX 🖋 20:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
"Detail"? You have GOT to be kidding. Not include a sentence in the lede about the primary campaign, which was hotly contested, lasted for a front-page-coverage year, and has its own separate Wikipedia article? And yet you want to add some uncited nonsense about his brash and bombastic personality? Please let’s refocus on what the lede is supposed to do: summarize the most important parts of the article. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The primary campaign would be lead worthy for the campaign article or perhaps the presidency article, but not this one. On the other hand, Trump's enduring character has been extensively written about and would make this a better biography.- MrX 🖋 01:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
The purpose of the draft was to get others to participate in improving this content, not to suggest that it be put in the article in that form. What are your ideas?- MrX 🖋 20:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Leave it alone. The proposals I have seen so far are not improvements. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I would like to hear from others if you don't mind, but your comments are noted.- MrX 🖋 01:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I have concerns about that sentence as well. Any diversion of this sort which focuses on describing Trump's character is frought with POV pitfalls, especially where the woridng implies that these are his innate qualities that have been attested throughout his life. If attempted at all in the article (and I question the encyclopedic value of focusing too much attention here when there is so much to say about his actions, statements, and policies and their impact) it would need to be done where proper context and careful attribution can take place. Shoe-horning in a statement which (no matter how carefully crafted) is always going to be received by a substantial number of readers as a "have you heard the mouth on this guy?" dog whistle--and more broadly, is just always going to be too problematic as an NPOV matter, if placed in the lead. If we engage at all in a discussion of Trump's social character, we need a larger palette to state these matters and base them in well-attributed sourcing such that they have a neutral flow.
I'm much more open to discussion of the race issue in the lead. If we were talking about anyone less controversial in general, discussion of some of his blatantly racist statements would be taking place in the first few sentences, and I see no reason to omit commentary on those statements from the lead altogether. Personally, I think "racially-motivated" is inaccurate though; this is a turn of phrase that is usually reserved for when someone says something that, on its face, has nothing to do with race, but which observers believe is in fact motivated by race, because it impacts upon racial issues. Trump's controversial statements with regard to race, on the other hand, tend to be expressly about race (Mexican "rapists" and so forth). So I would favour "racially-charged", or some such, as the descriptor. Some of his policies, on the other hand, could be reasonably described as "racially-motivated". I don't know how firmly established the previous consensus was for keeping race out of the lead, so I don't know if it is pragmatic and appropriate to re-litigate the matter at this time, but my personal impression is that it is WP:DUE; not many sitting presidents in the modern era have gone on public record to make the racial comments that Trump has. Snow let's rap 01:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not attached to the "brash and bombastic" piece, or really any other characterization of his personality in the lead. I only threw it out there because several biographical sources touch on it and the lead seems to be lacking something that encapsulates who Trump is or a summation of what makes him special. I tend to agree that if we are to summarize his racial attitude, then "racially-charged" seems about right. Note: I wrote "racial attitude" instead of "racial views" specifically to avoid the typical objection that Trump's only racial view is that he is not racist. - MrX 🖋 02:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, his only self-attested racial view, anyway. I personally feel confident that there is enough of a wealth of sources talking about his other interpreted/received racial views that we could discuss them, even in the lead--provided that they are well-attributed and do not reflect a value judgement in Wikipedia's voice. Along the same lines, I understand why it is a non-starter to describe Trump as a racist in the lead, but there's nothing in terms of policy restraining us from noting that some of his statements and proposed policies have themselves been viewed as racist, by a large number of both primary and secondary sources (and a huge swath of the world's population). That's just fidelity with the sources and reality and doesn't require personal interpretation or synthesis on our part. Nor is this something that needs to be constrained to the article on his presidency; he has a history of controversial behaviour in this regard that goes much further back into the public record. Snow let's rap 02:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Well said.- MrX 🖋 11:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this rough draft and the other suggestions here as insufficient cause to stir up things, apparently done on whim or just editor preference. This article should be following the guides of WP:BLP and WP:LEAD, seek to focus on Biographical information, and must be written conservatively. UNDUE insertion of opinion editors and critics is not appropriate. Reproduction of the Presidency article is not desired. Jumping to edits in the lead is to be discouraged. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    The current lead give undue emphasis to the campaign, and Trump's Forbes ranking, and undue lack of coverage of Trump's racial views which have been the subject of extensive, sustained coverage. WP:LEAD requires that we cover all significant points in the article, of which Trump's racial attitude stands out as a very important one. Your interpretation of BLP seems to be that anything negative about a subject can't be covered in the lead. Or perhaps you are interpreting "must be written conservatively" in a political sense; in my view, we cannot omit something as pervasively and extensively reported as Trump's racial stance simply because people don't like it, or because they prefer to see the lead filled with laudatory praise of Trump's stunning wealth, golf courses, and brilliant political achievements. - MrX 🖋 10:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all of it. Not sure why the changes since we just got through talking about all these points recently, or least in last 6 months anyway.--MONGO (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to shut down this discussion because the first working draft was not perfect. WP is not the platform for hagiography of public figures. Moreover, even Americans who support Trump for his role in promoting a certain political agenda routinely discuss his many deviations from established standards and expectations. I think the deleted wording about his public manner can be restored later in some form, as it relates to article content. Meanwhile I suggest removing the "or controversial, and many have been perceived as racially motivated" from its current location, since the false statements are not confined to race-related matters. I would locate it instead at the end to read "His election and policies have been controversial, and many have been perceived them to be racially motivated." I think we should offer suggestions to OP and let him be the one to edit the proposed text so that we do not end up with half a dozen alternative versions, since we know from past discussions that these are difficult to resolve. SPECIFICO talk 11:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)T

  • Comment For comparison, here's the relevant part of Barack Obama's lead: In 2008, he was nominated for president a year after his campaign began and after a close primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. He was elected over Republican John McCain and was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. For Bill Clinton: Clinton was elected president in 1992, defeating incumbent Republican opponent George H. W. Bush, at age 46, he became the third-youngest president and the first from the Baby Boomer generation. For George H. W. Bush: In 1988, Bush ran a successful campaign to succeed Reagan as President, defeating Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the Clinton and Bush examples do a much better job of covering only the significant points.- MrX 🖋 18:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Further reductions in "Political career"[edit]

All of these may be somewhat controversial:

  • A: Should the "Financial disclosures" section be merged into "Wealth"? Some discussion of tax returns would also need to be merged to "2016 Republican presidential primaries".
  • B: Is "Political positions" necessary, now that most of these are discussed at greater length under various subsections of "Presidency"? A few of these should stay at "2016 general election campaign"; "build the wall" in particular needs to be mentioned somewhere in this section.
  • C: Should "Campaign rhetoric" be merged with various sections in "Public profile", including those on "False statements"? I think there's a sense that Trump's rhetoric wasn't unique to the campaign; he had talked the same way before running, and he continues to talk the same way as President.
  • D: Should the "Protests" section be removed completely? The link to Protests against Donald Trump should stay somewhere, the rest feels very unnecessary here.

I also have thoughts about the "White supremacist support" section that will take longer to write up (and I will do so in a separate discussion); the "Sexual misconduct allegations" may get moved around but I don't plan to suggest significant changes to it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Racially charged[edit]

In light of continuing reports of Trump's racial views, specifically about Europe "losing its culture" because of immigration[10][11][12], I would like to focus the discussion about Trump's racial stance based on the feedback in the broader discussion a few sections up.

I'm seeking input on how to phrase the following sentence for an upcoming RfC. If you simply oppose mentioning Trump's racial attitudes in the lead, please save it for the RfC. If you have ideas about the proposed wording, please share them.

The idea would be to replace this:

; many of his public statements were controversial or false.

with a sentence something like this:

Many of his public statements have been false or controversial, and many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially-charged.

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful collaboration. :-)- MrX 🖋

I wonder how productive it will be to combine two highly controversial changes into one: Taking "controversial or false" out of the campaign context, and the racial aspect. ―Mandruss  13:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
So do you think two sentences would be better? It could be a two part RfC, with one part addressing a change from "; many of his public statements were controversial or false." to "Many of his public statements have been controversial or false.", and the other part addressing "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially-charged.". What do you think?- MrX 🖋 14:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Might as well be two separate RfCs; the issues are completely different, and RfC count reduction is not a goal. Once you have consensus for both parts, joining them into one sentence should be an uncontroversial matter of flow (that would probably need a quick survey, but it should be an easy pass). ―Mandruss  14:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a valid point. What are your thoughts on this wording:

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

This is built off a suggestion from Snow Rise. - MrX 🖋 14:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I dunno. I'm still in learn mode on most such things, but seems a bit weaselly. Perceived[by whom?] Trump opponents? It seems like an empty statement. I think "by the media" would be an improvement. I think "by some of the media" would be a step too far, provided we're confident that it reflects a majority media view. If an RfC presented two options I think chances of a consensus for one of them would be fair to good. ―Mandruss  14:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Perceived by "many", unless you know of a succinct way of saying 160 million plus US citizens, legislators, world leaders, historians, journalists, scholars, federal prosecutors, and so on. It's far beyond just the media or opponents.- MrX 🖋 15:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
If you can support all that with solid non-opinion RS, then "widely perceived". Otherwise it's personal perception of perceptions, highly subject to natural human bias. I'd expect to see those RS links in an RfC, and I'd Oppose if they were absent or insufficient. ―Mandruss  15:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no need for weaselly "perceived as". Who disputes that many of his statements are racially charged? RS widely confirm this. It's not a matter of which "side" or ideology is reporting. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Let's see what others think about it.- MrX 🖋 16:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
However I think others have made a valid point that controversial is not the same as false and that each of those categories relate to several different kinds of statements -- not just racially charged, but also misrepresenting policies and actions of himself and his administration, and lying about various readily-verifiable facts. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I do think this is a suggestion worth considering; I'm not committing to any particular action just yet. I do suggest that "many of his comments and actions" in the "racially charged" sentence be changed to "some of his comments and actions", the racial hints and dog-whistles have been nowhere near as frequent, obvious, and well documented as the falsehoods, which are a daily occurrence. --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Side discussion. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • (Today's new one: claiming that a new poll shows him to be the most popular Republican in history, "more popular than Lincoln".[13]) --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    Linked article you provide says "A Gallup poll found that 90 percent of Republicans approve of Trump’s job performance..." so is this a lie claimed or simply a boastful exaggeration? Link also says there were no PO polls during Lincolns time, but there have been polls since and Lincoln has rarely ranked 90 even if only republicans are concerned.--MONGO (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    It's a falsehood (I try to avoid the word "lie) because George W. Bush had rankings higher than Trump's for most of his second year - as high as 98% at several points. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Best way forward is to make sure who feels his comments are racial and then qualify it rather than just leave a blanket statement. "According to A,B,C,D, Trumps comments have been seen as racist, however according to E,F,G and H, they have been perceived as lacking racist overtones."--MONGO (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    That kind of detail belongs in the text. We are talking about whether to include an unsourced summary sentence in the lede - which we can do if the material is significantly covered in the text. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    "According to nobody, no statement of Trump's had racial overtones" -- SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that would practical for the lead and it would run afoul of WP:FALSEBALANCE. We could, however, write "Many of his statements and actions have been racially-charged, but some people dispute that." - MrX 🖋 17:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
That's more like it. Yes.--MONGO (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
On second thought, I don't like this at all so will wait for the Rfc!!--MONGO (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I think MrX's original proposal is fine as is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Still rather undue for the lead. I am not seeing anything strong enough to change the previous consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    If you simply oppose mentioning Trump's racial attitudes in the lead, please save it for the RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talkcontribs)
No I saw that, it is just worth mentioning. Also sign your darn posts, you are not new here. PackMecEng (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
It was worth mentioning that you can't respect a simple request not to disrupt a discussion? Great!- MrX 🖋 19:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
No just how bad an idea this is less than 6 months after the last failed RFC for this. Do you understand now? Great! PackMecEng (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
No, I honestly don't. There was never an RfC for "this".- MrX 🖋 20:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
You do not believe this falls under consensus item 24? Why would that be? PackMecEng (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is what sources say, in their own voice, about Trump's racial stance. This is not an exhaustive list.
These should provide good guidance for summarizing this in the lead. - MrX 🖋 18:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

"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

Except most WP:reliable sources do not explicitly call him a racist. I appreciate your desire to call what you perceive as a spade for a spade, but at the same time, you have to be realistic about what is going to pass through Wikipedia's editorial neutrality filter and what just isn't no matter how much you advocate for it. Mind you, I think there's WP:WEIGHT for some mention of the racial element in the lead (I would not have endorsed the proposal to the extent I did above, if not for that) but I think you do more damage than good to Mr. X's proposal when you make comments like the above that seem flippant in light of the serious WP:NPOV concerns here and which, even beyond that, show a certain degree of impatient indifference with the more conservative [in editorial, not political philosophy terms] views of other editors here. You need to win these people over, not belittle their concerns, which are a lot more legitimate than the short-shrift you are giving them above.
And look, I am by no means a WP:BLP stalwart; I often feel (and voice the opinion) that the BLP precautionary principle is over-exercised to reductio ad absurdium extremes. But this is not one of those cases. We're talking about the president of the United States and the world's most controversial human being rolled into one. And while it's appropriate to predicate that analysis in the sources, the number of sources here is massive, so cherry picking is a real concern--because whether you think he is the second coming or the anti-christ (and I'm quite sure there are tens of millions of people who think he is literally either of those things, let alone figuratively) you can find a decent number of sources which align with an extreme view of any action he takes. We must therefore take great care and exercise a high degree of editorial caution in things we say about this controversial man which are themselves controversial.
Do I think it's properly WP:DUE to state that many people regard various of his statements as racist? Yes, that would be my favoured approach. Do I think that we'll probably have to settle, at least as far as the lead is concerned, for saying some of his statements are received as "racially-charged"? Yeah, probably, but it's better than the big ol' nothing we got adressing this aspect of his notability right now. Do I think we're going to end up saying anything remotely like "A lot of people hold that Trump is a racist"? Not a chance. So let's keep the effort focused on options that exist within a middle ground that consensus may be able to access, and maybe shelve the "Are you kidding me, why is this so difficult?" type comments while we're still trying to get people on board for the idea that any statement in this area should exist in the lead? Snow let's rap 15:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: Could you try to respond to me again, more succinctly, without putting words in my mount -- "racist" -- when, as a matter of fact, I've repeatedly opposed using all kinds of labels to tag BLP subjects on various articles. Your good intentions and thoughtfulness are matched only by your disregard for my actual positions. Thanks. And PS the Chevalier thing is exactly brilliantly and incisively on point, and it further supports the RS narrative that this is Trump's style and manner of speech and that we needn't get into OR about where it comes from or even exactly how deeply considered or widely held it may be, his comments sound and feel racially-charged, which is the proposed article text, and this is not in dispute in RS accounts of his speech. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough: you haven't explicitly advocated for adding racist to the lead. To the extent that I mischaracterized your position, I am sorry. But at the same time, I hope you consider the major thrust of my comments, because I don't think it's particularly unreasonable that not everyone is on board for the racially charged language we want to add. Given the importance of the topic (this being the second most trafficked article on the encyclopedia), the test that Trump's controversial and divisive nature puts on any editor trying to parse neutrality issues, and the sheer amount of sourcing that has to be grappled with, I think it's understandable that reasonably intelligent editors might disagree on how to proceed and/or be inclined to move slow--sometimes even painfully slow.
Like you, I have a hard time understanding the perspective that responses to Trump's vocalness on racial issues are undue for the lead. But I suspect that to the extent that "obvious" changes for the better are slow be effectuated here, it has less to do with a pro-Trump bias and more to do with editors who are used to sublimating their own perspectives to an objective, source-based, and WP:NPOV approach; as far as most experienced Wikipedians are concerned, "emotion is the mind killer" and because it's pretty difficult to stay indifferent to Trump (whatever else you say about him, that's gotta be true) I think most editors working on this page probably find themselves triple and quadruple checking themselves (and everyone else) before supporting anything, just because the man looms large in the mind as a topic that engenders a certain amount of emotional response--which causes most Wikivets to adopt a reflexive extra high level of caution. That's my theory anyway. And if it's true, it's a good instinct that we shouldn't even want to push back against too much. Anyway, I will continue to support adding some discussion of the race issue in the lead, but I think it's going to take some time and we have to approach it (and some other issues here) with a long-haul mentality. Snow let's rap 18:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
First, thanks.
I think compromise is a bad model for resolving the kind of dispute that's mounted in response to simple description or conveyance of mainstream narratives with respect to Trump and some of his policies and related subjects. The reason is that a compromise rubric can easily be subverted by one party or the other staking out an unreasonable starting position. We have many good editors on the American Politics articles, but we also have others who are partisan, ignorant, willful or unable to interact respectfully with others. Any of those factors will result in a compromise that subverts WP policy. We have editors whose user space features pinups of Trump, sarcastic references to various policy issues -- "hello taxpayers! I am editor Z" and rants on all sorts of political talking points. As we know, editors who are trying to reflect the mainstream do not generally resort to this kind of stuff and don't come to edit with ideology in mind. Editors who are trying to insinuate minority or partisan views find it necessary to disrupt this shared work environment with bad behavior, denial of policy, or defective sourcing, because all those standards clearly invalidate the content they favor. It's pretty easy to spot such editors. They deflect and dissemble, they feign outrage at simple editing q+a, and they personalize discussions with disparagment and accusation. "Compromise" may end the pain temporarily, but in the long run it weakends the encyclopedia and ensures that this disruptive behavior, once rewarded, will continue.
The suggestion that Trump does not evoke racially-charged themes, emotions, statements, reactions -- all reported by the vast bulk of RS worldwide -- is unsupportable and we should not tolerate it. There's plenty of room for discussion as to placement, weight, detail, etc. but denial is disruption. It's the sort of thing we as a community do not tolerate. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:POVFIGHTER is my concise response to that, emphasis on its last sentence. ―Mandruss  23:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I have to tell you, that doesn't sound like very tenable long-term editorial philosophy to me. Whenever an editor wants to change content in a contentious area, they pretty have to do a two stage analysis; they must address (in this exact order) the following questions: 1) What is the most accurate way to represent this topic in fidelity with the sources? 2) Can I achieve a stable consensus that this is indeed the optimal approach to the content? With an important corollary to 2: If I can't get my ideal version adopted, what is the closest thing I can move the consensus towards without becoming unduly disruptive over the matter? Anyway, in this instance, we're not even talking about compromise so much as patience. So anyhow, I'll leave it at that: I've voiced the point I was seeking to. Snow let's rap 09:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
In case nobody noticed, I compiled a list of how sources describe Trump's racial attitudes. This one from The New York Times does a pretty good job of summing it up:

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

Perhaps this could be a starting point for crafting some wording.- MrX 🖋 11:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This proposal is ill-formed. As I noted minutes ago up thread (although I'm told my comments were misplaced), one ought to be extremely careful when debating a fragment of a sentence, it conceptually can be done, if the portion of the senates omitted would not bear on the issue but the discussion is doomed from the start if the omitted portion of the sentence is relevant to the issue. Oddly, the section where I was told I was out of line does contain the entire sentence, but the section where I apparently was supposed to contribute refers only to the fragment, the section continues that improper construction.

To be specific, you should not be discussing a sentence fragment such as ; many of his public statements were controversial or false. without noting the antecedent. This discussion is arguably worse. Not only does it omit the antecedent but it is suggesting replacing a sentence fragment with a full statement. Possibly that's warranted but one has to discuss what happens to the beginning of the sentence. Is it retained as a full sentence standing on its own? Or removed? Or something else?

Please start over and do it right. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you failed to observe that this discussion has evolved into how me might word a sentence (or more) that summarizes Trump's lifetime racial attitudes. That. Nothing else; in fact, the original discussion was clearly to remove the dated sentence fragment ("The idea would be to replace this:" and replace it with an entire sentence, which means we were never "discussing a sentence fragment".
The discussion has moved way past sentence fragments and controversies, and process, and editor behavior analysis. I don't know why something so basic and fundamental to how Wikipedia is supposed to work is so elusive; in any case, from now on I will simply start an RfC with specific proposed wording, and if that doesn't reach consensus, I will propose another with different wording. I'm convinced that we will eventually be able to bring the lead up to date, provided that editors can focus on the task at hand.- MrX 🖋 17:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why something so basic and fundamental to how Wikipedia is supposed to work is so elusive. I concur. I thought proposals for edits were fairly basic. Fairly sure I've seen advice somewhere suggesting that a well-formed edit request is in the form of please change "A" to "B" where "A" represents the existing wording and "B" represents the desired wording. Wikipedia:Edit_requests Seems relevant but isn't as clear as I would like. Perhaps we need to add advice that says that "A" should generally be an entire sentence. If it represents a fragment, the editor proposing the change should read very carefully to make sure that the remainder of the sentence would not change the views of any of the voters, it would not have occurred to me that if the proposal is to change a portion of the sentence to a full sentence that one ought to also I discuss what happens to the rest of the sentence but maybe that's needed as well. Yes, I'm a bit off topic, but I've looked at three different request for edits in the last few minutes, two of which were poorly formed and the only one which was well-formed I was told I was improperly contributing to, this is basic stuff. Why is it so hard?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Specifically, if a consensus is reach that the fragment following His campaign received extensive free media coverage; should be converted to some standalone sentence, what happens to the beginning of the sentence? Does the semicolon get changed to a period and it become a full sentence? Does it go away? I don't see any discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Donald Trump talk page where even the simplest discussion quickly goes off the rails. To recap: This is not an edit request, it is not a proposal. It's not a process discussion, it is not a place to proclaim ones opposition to change. It is not a place to police other editors, it is "seeking input on how to phrase the following sentence for an upcoming RfC". A couple of editors actually contributed that that objective.- MrX 🖋 17:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Fair point, I did miss that you are trying to workout wording for an RFC as opposed to an edit request. However, my impression is that an RFC, even more than a simple edit request, has to be well-formed. So my advice, that talking about converting a portion of the sentence to a full sentence without mentioning what would happen to the beginning of the sentence is problematic, and ought to be addressed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you drop the word "perceived" and if you do use it, drop the passive voice. First enough sources state this, that you should just state the statements are racially charged. If you are going to use the word perceived, tell the reader who perceives it.Casprings (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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.- MrX 🖋 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?- MrX 🖋 18:29, 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).- MrX 🖋 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". [14] 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.- MrX 🖋 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)

Extended comments[edit]

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)

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

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. - MrX 🖋 18:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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


Survey part 1[edit]

  • 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.- MrX 🖋 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.- MrX 🖋 12:59, 16 July 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 (talkcontribs) 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 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)

Alternative language[edit]

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.- MrX 🖋 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)
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.- MrX 🖋 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.- MrX 🖋 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.- MrX 🖋
(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.- MrX 🖋 16:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Support change as proposed by Scjessey. --HunterM267 talk 17:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey part 2[edit]

  • 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)

Extended discussion[edit]

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)

RfC #2: Should the lead include a sentence about Trump's racial stance?[edit]

Per this RFC above, should the wording of the sentence about Trump's racially charged comments not use the term "perceived" and simply state that the statements were racially charged? Specifically, something like:

Many of his comments and actions were 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

Casprings (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. WP:RS support that the statements were racially charged. We should not weaken that by using the term "perceived". We should reflect what the sources say when it is supported as strongly as it is here.Casprings (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Not the right words "Racially charged" is nebulous and unclear. It's almost the type of euphemism Trump would use himself. Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear. Plenty of racists support Trump, so who says things that will encourage them, he is also not too interested in being politically correct. Not sure how that can be written in a couple of words other than speaking of populism and pandering to the masses. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the use of "racially charged" per WP:EUPHEMISM. It's just a watered-down euphemism for "racist". [15] GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose What a difficult situation this is. Not sure how to frame it but the wording suggested here is not satisfactory. Sadly, as I have mentioned before, we are limited by a polarizing media that oftentimes fails us in our efforts to remain dispassionate and objective. We do not have to follow their oftentimes very unobjective cues.--MONGO (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Which sources describe it differently? Why not post them. Then we can compare sources. Personally, I think the language above is neutral.Casprings (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You may see it as neutral. I'm not so sure, because I'm not sure what it means. Can you provide a well sourced, non-ambiguous, unarguable definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose per MONGO. Couldn't have expressed it better myself. -- ψλ 00:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as a second choice. This wording is supported by many sources, but I am somewhat less comfortable without the word "perceived" being included.- MrX 🖋 02:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose just plain awkwardly. As an idiomatic matter, the phrase "racially charged" is usually used in circumstances that suggest a multiplicity of views on the behaviour or comments being described by the phrase. So combining this word sense with an objective statement just creates a situation of confused semantics, in my opinion. It becomes are once a peculiarly worded matter and also suggests a kind of concrete implication of racial bias that the original version proposed above does not. I think this may have been what MONGO was talking about when they said it was difficult to frame, and it took me a moment to work it out too. Despite how subtle the change is from the above proposal, this variation just feels inappropriate and inaccurate. Snow let's rap 04:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - don’t be silly. The whole idea is failing LEAD and RACIST, and was apparently submitted without any specifics so now is just fishing ??? Think a thread about restricting LEAD edits is needed here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per MONGO's reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjbagl (talkcontribs) 17:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose largely per MONGO's reasoning, and per my conclusions drawn above, at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_Should_the_lead_include_a_sentence_about_Trump's_racial_stance?. --HunterM267 talk 17:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest procedural close – It is very confusing to have two RfCs open on a variant of the same phrase. First get consensus whether some content should be included, then perhaps rework this consensus to update the wording. — JFG talk 19:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
No such procedure. There's no confusion. Let's give other editors and opportunity to participate in the consensus building process. - MrX 🖋 19:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Consensus-building efforts should precede RfCs; prior discussion helps decide what should be submitted to the wider community. — JFG talk 20:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
We must keep in mind WP:RFCBEFORE. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we already did that. Remember? Now we're having an RfC.- MrX 🖋 22:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is much better than saying "considered racially-charged". However, there are still issues. "Racially-charged" is not commonly used in RS, and it's simply not the best term. For example, "racially charged term" is called an "ethnic slur" on Wikipedia, and "racial charging" is called "racism", this proposal is very vague; it couldn't be more vague. The sources also seem very vague (at least the snippets that are quoted above). Are we talking about Trump's "racially-charged" (related to race) statements about the black unemployment rate [16] or about his August 15 abandonment of his previous condemnations of the KKK [17]? Thus, asserting that he did/said plenty of "racially-charged" things is no more useful than asserting that he is a racist person (both imply his actions are racially driven). Also, a lot of these sources are actually opinions, such as "majority of Americans" and "celebrities". wumbolo ^^^ 12:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only makes it worse dropping the "perceived". So we go from commentators calling him racists to wikipedia calling him racist? Not an improvement. PackMecEng (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There is vagueness here, but we have yet to see a better overview of the relevant words and actions, and there is bound to be some information loss in a summary. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 02:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Moral support although I don't like the euphemistic-sounding "racially charged". "Racist" is more straightforward. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Should LEAD edit restrictions be made ?[edit]

Seems like lately there is a number of wants to edit the lead, either jump to edit in lead from that morning’s TV (with nothing in article), or re-litigating old ground.

Should there be some restriction or minimum hurdle be added for lead edits? Generally should we put in

  • A) No additional guidance; or
  • B) A 30-day moratorium on any lead edit; or
  • C) No lead change without some New external event causing it; or
  • D) No lead change without substantial New article content causing it

Thoughts ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • WP:SNOW Oppose That's just not how this works. We have general community policies which govern when and how often an issue can be raised for a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussion and when and where it is WP:DISRUPTIVE to keep raising an issue. If anyone has a particular editor whom they feel is WP:POVPUSHING or refusing the WP:DROPTHESTICK, they can pursue the normal community remedies or seek application of the WP:Discretionary sanctions that are in place here. But creating a moratorium on the lead for the encyclopedia's second most trafficked article is both infeasible and counter-intuitive--not to mention an arbitrary "solution" to the supposed issues. Don't get me wrong, even just stopping in for short bursts whenever an RfC summons me, I have seen a lot of the refusal to let things go which I can see has inspired this proposal (I've seen a great deal of civil and not so civil POV pushing whenever a bot does bring me here). But the proposed cure is worse than the disease and just not workable. Snow let's rap 07:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: I get it that you enjoy rising snow, but it's not up to any participant in this discussion to call it SNOW before the pile-on you seem to anticipate actually occurs. Snow white can wait a few hours… Face-smile.svgJFG talk 21:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Haha, fair enough. But the reason I anticipate a little SNOW here is because this would run against the grain of policy; even if it got a subsantial number of support !votes here, it would still be unenforceable; we can't maintain a moratorium on editing; consensus changes and articles as prominent as this can't have their lead locked to a given version; indeed, we don't do this with any article on the project, but it would be especially problematic with regard to one as high profile as this. Likewise, options C and D (while perhaps good advice that should be considered) just beg the question; that is to say, those approaches will just shift the topic matter that people are arguing over, rather than forestalling them from debating (or being tendentious if they were going to be so anyway). So my SNOW vote was not because I didn't think some people might find this to be a good idea; I'm sure a couple will. But you'd never get an admin to enforce it and trying to do so with social pressure here would just add to the acrimony. I certainly understand why Mark felt there is a need to address the problem of people not giving up on things that consensus has rejected, but this is not the right tool for the job. Snow let's rap 21:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - With the exception of typos/spelling/vandalism and similar, I think the lede of this article is contentious enough that it would be reasonable to expect even small changes to require consensus on the talk page first. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are arbitration remedies already in place. I do not see the benefit that could be gained from making it even harder to change the status quo. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a requirement to discuss "significant" changes to the lead on the talk page first, though I doubt any proposal here will find consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support no lede change without prior discussion on the talk page. Oppose any moratorium. — JFG talk 21:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unclear how these restrictions can be enforced. There's are already DS for this page and this is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Improper semicolon? Lack of citation?[edit]

The article summary states: "His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false." I don't see any connection between these two ideas, and I don't think they should be joined by a semicolon. A period seems more appropriate. Additionally, the latter claim (that many of his statements were false) seems very bold and politically charged. I feel uncomfortable leaving that and not mentioning that something so bold requires a source, it feels like a political statement, rather than a statement of encyclopedic fact. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This issue is currently being discussed here. Trump tells falsehoods constantly, and there is no need to water that statement of fact down, the lede does not have citations, because everything in it is a summary of the content in the body of the article (which is fully cited). If you require additional proof that Trump lies constantly, consider this article from Saturday that says that according to historians, Trump is responsible for "an unprecedented avalanche of serial lying." (source: "Trump has said 1,340,330 words as president. They’re getting more dishonest, a Star study shows") -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
A fair amount off into hyperbole ranting and vague assertions there. Suggesting stick to things for this article of biographical importance which have WEIGHT and are factual, and not so much covering what spin is put out from media or politicians. This is supposed to be a BLP. But thanks for bringing in TheStar. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: A fine example of a completely useless comment, Mark. The "hyperbole" was from a reliable source, there were no "vague assertions", and after exhaustive consensus-building discussion we have already established the biographical importance of Trump's economy with the truth. The Star is providing hard statistical data, so it is an extremely useful source. Maybe think before you blurt out something unnecessarily inflammatory in future? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Scjessey Actually, my message was that you should do that very thing. You went OFFTOPIC a bit, into hyperbolic/ranty, I called it and suggested put more focus to Biographical, Weight, and factual. The false claim “falsehoods constantly” is hyperbolic, whether your words or from your choosing to repeat a source being hyperbolic. The “no need to water” is a vague assertion by metaphor. Neither were in discussion topics of semicolon or if a cite was needed. Further false hyperbolic assertion on lede that “everything in it” is summary, as if Talk does not currently have several threads about editing lead or past consensus and past odd edits. Moving on you got more ranty at now “lies” constantly, and then bolding a flamboyant metaphor quote. Not on topic of semicolon and cites, and not factual BLP useful. The Star gives a diversity benefit and has transparency that others lack — somebody other than the usual NYT/CNN/Washington Post — but it is not “hard statistical data” when it is counting subjective calls and about inaccuracies. Oh, and “think” did happen, so “maybe” and “blurt” are two more inaccuracies here — which if you were Trump would be counted. Anyway, the key point is you went OFFTOPIC and ranted a bit, not unknown here, but I suggest that is a bad habit and best to call someone back when it happens. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Ikjbagl - I think they mean his campaign received extensive free media coverage by making outrageous statements. There were some voiced opinions that chasing ratings made for giving him about $1.9 Billion in free publicity. Though it seems part of a dubious opinion or framing, seems like denial at times. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Obama birth certificate[edit]

Is this level of detail really necessary for this article? I think not. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No, and it's original research based on a primary sources as far as I can tell.- MrX 🖋 16:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
If you're not going to revert per BRD, we should notify the non-regular editor Schistocyte of this discussion. ―Mandruss  16:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: can you please explain why you believe the sentence was original research? Here is the verbaitim quote from the Hawaii DOH
"In 2001, the Hawai„i State Department of Health began computer-generating vital statistics records. Since then, its longstanding policy and practice has been to issue and provide only the computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth, and to not produce photocopies of actual records to fulfill requests for certified copies of certificates."
Several fact-checking websites mentioned this point, but I thought it was most appropriate to utilize the original source. If you would be more comfortable with another source, here is a quote from politifact that says essentially the same thing:
"So back to the claim that Gibbs lied about posting Obama's birth certificate on the Internet. WorldNetDaily is correct that the Obama campaign didn't post his original birth certificate on the Internet, but their suggestion that there is some significant difference between the two documents is wrong. They both prove the same thing. Maybe the original would identify the hospital where Obama was born, but that's irrelevant, the issue is what city, and therefore country, was he born. The document posted by the campaign proves Obama was born in Honolulu, according to Health Department officials. And that's really the central issue here.The Health Department says the "Certification of Live Birth" is Hawaii's version of a birth certificate." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/28/worldnetdaily/birthers-claim-gibbs-lied-when-he-said-obamas-birt/
Schistocyte (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Schistocyte: Sorry, I jumped the gun. It is not original research. However, it is a bit too detailed for this article in my opinion.- MrX 🖋 17:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: No worries. Here's why I think it is important: Trump said on numerous occasions how proud he was that he got Obama to release his birth certificate (at one point saying it was "something he should have done a long time ago"), this is simply not true. Obama already released his birth certificate during the campaign, and he later had to petition the Hawaii DOH for them to go against their policy and release the original document to put an end to the questions. Obviously if there is not a consensus on including this point, then I want push for it. Thanks Schistocyte (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I think we need to limit the coverage here to the essentials. It's really not necessary to prove that Trump made a false claim, since that's business as usual.- MrX 🖋 21:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This is certainly an interesting detail, but it is undue in this BLP of Trump. We already link to the master article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and that's where it belongs. I also think we give too much space to this paragraph, compared with other elements of Trump's bio. I would cut it down to 4-5 lines max. — JFG talk 19:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
We should just say he made false claims A, B, C, and was a leader in promulgating Obama birther conspiracy theories, which sought to delegitimize and "other" the first African-American president. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
After some additional reflection I do think this pharagraph could be shortened and the content I was attempting to add probably is better suited in the article on the conspiracy theory itself. Schistocyte (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Sounds a WP:SOAPBOX or WP:OR discussion here -- voiced a pushing an editorial position of aiming for "just say he made false claims A, B, C, and was a leader in promulgating Obama birther conspiracy theories" -- on just personal agenda ? Wasn't the whole point in question about the short form being disliked and NOT accepted as a real birth certificate ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here? Sorry. Schistocyte (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Schistocyte - The “We should just say he made false claims” etcetera is reading like choosing to push a SOAPBOX or personal agenda points. I then asked whether that article section is focused on demanding the long form. (Implication being that should have gotten attention.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


Proposal[edit]

Current paragraph on birtherism is too long for this bio, compared with other events covered.

Trump played a leading role in "birther" conspiracy theories that had been circulating since Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.[276][277] Beginning in March 2011, he publicly questioned Obama's citizenship and eligibility to serve as president.[278][279][280] Although the Obama campaign had released a copy of the "Certificate of Live Birth" in 2008,[281] Trump demanded to see the original "long-form" certificate.[278] Notably, the Hawaii Department of Health does not produce copies of original birth certificates when fulfilling a vital records request, as both documents contain the same fundamental information and thus both are legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawaii.[282] Trump later mentioned having sent investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but he did not follow up with any findings.[278] He also repeated a debunked allegation that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya.[283][284] When the White House later released Obama's long-form birth certificate,[285] Trump took credit for obtaining the document, saying "I hope it checks out."[286] His official biography mentions his purported role in forcing Obama's hand,[287] and he has defended his pursuit of the issue when prompted, later saying that his promotion of the conspiracy made him "very popular".[288] In 2011, he had called for Obama to release his student records, questioning whether his grades warranted entry into an Ivy League school.[289] He also claimed in his 2011 CPAC speech that Obama's classmates "don't know who he is".[290] When asked in 2015 whether he believed Obama was born in the United States, he said he did not want to discuss the matter further.[291][292] In September 2016, he publicly acknowledged Obama's birthplace and falsely claimed that the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign.[279] In late 2017, he continued to question the authenticity of the birth certificate in closed-door conversations with advisers.[293]

I would suggest to summarize it thus:

Starting in 2011, Trump was a major proponent of "birther" conspiracy theories alleging that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, questioning his citizenship and eligibility. When the White House released the "long-form" birth certificate from Hawaii, Trump took credit for forcing Obama's hand, and he stated during his presidential campaign that pushing the issue had made him "very popular"; in September 2016, he publicly acknowledged Obama's birthplace and falsely claimed that the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 campaign. Trump had also questioned whether Obama's grades warranted entry into an Ivy League school.

Naturally, the most appropriate citations would be kept, but let's get agreement on a shorter text first. — JFG talk 23:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hillary's campaign did spread birtherism a bit. Not her personally, but it seems dodgy wording there and getting offtopic from birtherism into Hillaryism and gradeism at any rate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, it's a bit off-topic, but I was abiding by consensus #27, which is recent and unlikely to be overturned. The "gradeism" is significant as another angle of disparagement for the Trump–Obama rivalry. We could also use Trump's infamous "Obama will go down as the worst President ever", to which O. replied "At least I will go down as President". Yeah, that aged well… Face-smile.svgJFG talk 05:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose in current form - I like the idea of tightening it up, but I don't like the language in its current form. It is vital that we retain language like "leading role in 'birther' conspiracy theories" and "publicly questioned Obama's citizenship and eligibility" and "[Trump said that] his promotion of the conspiracy made him 'very popular'" in the section, because these speak volumes about the kind of man Trump is. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Scjessey: The proposed wording already includes most of what you deem vital. I have amended it to add the "citizenship and eligibility" part. Whether we say he "was a major proponent of" or "played a leading role in" sounds equivalent to me. — JFG talk 13:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the addition; however, I believe it needs to include all of the stuff I quoted. "Played a leading role in" is more significant than just "a major proponent." Trump was the primary figure in the birther movement, and he basically launched his campaign off the back of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
We disagree here, and I believe serious sources disagree as well. Correction 1: Trump was one of the primary figures of birtherism, there were plenty others, before and after him. Correction 2: Trump did not "launch his campaign off the back of birtherism"; the campaign happened 4 years later, and Obama's birthplace just happened to be evoked in a couple interviews, especially when Trump went after Cruz for being "Canadian" and McCain for being born in Panama. — JFG talk 20:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Scjessey - the reason why it is ‘vital’ just seems undesirable partisan SOAPBOX. “because these speak volumes about the kind of man Trump is” ... is not a suitable WP guide or policy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with some suggestions

Starting in 2011, Trump was a major proponent of "birther" conspiracy theories alleging that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, questioning his citizenship and eligibility that falsely asserted that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and questioned his eligibility to serve as president.

I'm really not trying to WP:POV push, but I believe this is the current consensus[18] at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
I'd also remove "forced Obama's hand" Just say something like: Trump would later take credit for the White House's release a copy of Obama's original ("long-form") birth certificate in 2011. Schistocyte (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump remarks in Trump-Putin press conference[edit]

The article needs to be updated with Trump's shocking performance in Helsinki, which sources are describing as treasonous, disgraceful, and "played like a fiddle".[19][20][21][22] Would anyone like to take a stab at it?- MrX 🖋 20:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's not play the "promote the most ridiculous comments" game that the media appears to be playing. Approximately nothing new happened, but there are plenty of "former government officials" willing to give hyperbolic quotes on Twitter. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 1y6 July 2018 (UTC)
The US President while standing next to an adversary who attacked the United States and continues to attack the United States refused to condemn the adversary or even acknowledge the assessment of his own intelligence community that the adversary was behind the attack on the US. It's widely been described as one of the most shocking, embarrassing and disgusting performances by an American president, and that's just by Republican partisans alone, never mind what foreign policy experts and Democrats are saying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sufficiently familiar with this subject to weigh in on its inclusion in any article at this time, but wouldn't such an addition more appropriately belong on a different article, like Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration or Presidency of Donald Trump? --HunterM267 talk 20:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
You could make that argument about reality TV shows and golf courses too, but the article is supposed to comprehensively cover Trump's life. This is not a gaffe. It's a tacit signal from Trump to Putin that he can go ahead and fuck with our elections. It's not something that one would expect to hear from any American, least of all the President who is legally obligated to defend the United States. I can't even believe I have to explain this. - MrX 🖋 20:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with power~enwiki's assessment pretty much exactly. PackMecEng (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I have a better idea. Let's not normalize the insanity, this is a very big deal.- MrX 🖋 20:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, and we're going to write an encyclopedia article about Trump (and not something else, such as a picture of a clown on a unicycle), regardless of what "normalizing" occurs as a result. In the long eye of history, I think this summit / press conference will rate somewhere below the Donald Trump baby balloon in terms of relevance. There may not be a single person in the entire United States whose opinion on "Trump-Russia" things is genuinely changed by this event. And regardless, discussion should focus on what was actually discussed, not the optics of a press-conference, (Perhaps the status of the Golan Heights was discussed? I don't think reliable sources have covered this yet, perhaps demonstrating it's too soon to discuss it here). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
A normal everyday headline at BBC News: "Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit."[23] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
When considered with the dozens of times he has said Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was "fake news" or a "witch hunt" in Washington DC or on Twitter? Yes, yes it is an everyday headline. The reasons why that is so are relevant to this article, the most recent example is not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, you want the article to make abundantly clear that Trump rejects that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and that he rejects his own intelligence community's assessments and his government's indictments against Russian officials? Because the article currently does not do that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
We seem to be down to one section on Russian interference, under "Investigations". It does seem to be quite a bit out of date. I very much want to avoid the day-to-day noise here (please no mention of Strzok), but something about Trump's continued statements in opposition to other members of his administration is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
He's not the president of Israel! And please don't presume to lecture editors who have far more experience building the encyclopedia than you do. - MrX 🖋 20:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Putin definitely mentioned the Golan Heights in the press conference. I expect they discussed several matters other than Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections in their two hour meeting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with both Power~enwiki and PackMecEng beginning with: "Let's not play the "promote the most ridiculous comments" game that the media appears to be playing. Approximately nothing new happened, but there are plenty of "former government officials" willing to give hyperbolic quotes on Twitter." -- ψλ 21:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I wrote a paragraph on it at the Presidency of Donald Trump article quickly after the Summit concluded.[24] It was of course turned into obfuscatory drivel by Winkelvi shortly thereafter. A version of the text certainly belongs in the Donald Trump article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Can we please not have any "but of course that guy fucked it up" style comments directed towards your fellow editors? This article is under WP:discretionary sanctions and that is pretty much a WP:PA, or close enough that an admin is not going to want to debate it with you if someone takes the matter to them. Snow let's rap 22:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Are we going to stop with chasing headlines some day? I'm thinking of formally advancing the suggestion once discussed at EEng's outstanding talk page: wait three days before adding any article on current political events. — JFG talk 20:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
User:JFG and others — I put a thread above here asking for inputs about restricting edits for the Lead at least. I would think the non-lead sections less critical, but guides for the lead section might be applicable elsewhere. Seems unlikely that any will come of it, but worth an ask. Markbassett (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Are we going to stop trying to trivialize and dismiss every major action of this subject as if it never happened? I'm not suggesting that this needs to be added this instant. I'm strongly suggesting that we consider including after a few days when we have some perspective.- MrX 🖋 21:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
"Are we going to stop trying to trivialize and dismiss every major action of this subject as if it never happened?" <-- apparently that is EXACTLY what the tactic is. Every time Trump does something significant, but that reflects badly on him, his gatekeepers argue that it's "trivial" and we need to "wait months" to include it, no matter how many reliable sources you throw at them. It's ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
A bio article needs far more than a few days perspective in my opinion. And maybe a week for the Presidency article. ―Mandruss  21:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: I'm perfectly fine with including something "after a few days when we have some perspective". We agree Face-smile.svgJFG talk 21:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Nobody's opinion of what Trump said today is going to change with "perspective". It has been universally condemned by Republicans, Democrats, diplomats, the intelligence services, the media, and just about any random dude you pull off the street and ask. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. We are not in competition with newspapers for readership, so there is no rush to print, the emotion present in this discussion could not be more clear. Emotion clouds judgment and it would be prudent to let some time pass before we consider inclusion of related content in this article. ―Mandruss  21:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an online encyclopedia, and yes, please try not be so emotional Mandruss. It's very upsetting to me. :-D- MrX 🖋 22:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think you need to be careful about the word "universal" there. There is no universal where Donald Trump is concerned: he could sign a "compulsory second-hand merkins for federal employees" executive order tomorrow and there would be a substantial number of people defending it, including reliable sources. I have to agree with Mandruss and others above: this is WP:CRYSTAL at this point and its senseless to start debating the ultimate form of our coverage here until we see how the WP:WEIGHT of the sources ultimately balances out here; maybe on a lower traffic article we could throw something quasi-definitive up now and tweak it from there, but on this article it would just be setting things up for disruption. Does it bother me that we have to wait to cover these things until after the spin machine has had a chance to reframe everything? Yeah, more than a bit, but that's the reality you have to accept if you want to edit in controversial areas and still uphold WP:NPOV. Snow let's rap 21:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's easy to get emotional sound-bytes immediately following anything re: Trump. Getting those opinions is cheap and easy knee-jerk "news" (which is not really news at all). On the other hand, it's sign of integrity to wait to comment/report if you are one of the usual talking heads and pundits and even more so if you're media. Or an online encyclopedia that waits to see what will happen/develop in three days to a week. One is a real problem currently, one isn't. I'd rather be part of the solution than the problem. Let's not forget why WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM is policy. -- ψλ 21:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Reminds me of the outrage at the May 2017 disclosure of classified information to Russia because a TASS photographer had caught Lavrov and Trump laughing in the Oval Office, after Trump had made a "treasonous" disclosure of ISIS-related information. And called Comey a jerk or something. — JFG talk 22:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It's nothing like that actually.- MrX 🖋 22:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

While I don’t agree with some editors’ minimization of the event and I don’t think RECENTISM is a strong argument; I do think we need to wait just a day or two to see more responses. Recentism is a valuable supplement and should always be considered in documenting (or not) recent events. But, it obviously does not automatically exclude a recent event from entry in WP. If the San Andreas Fault ruptures and California breaks off the West Coast and sinks, we are allowed to mention it immediately, these remarks are obviously a major^2 event that will be included in this article and should be reasonably quickly. It will be added. Let us concentrate on the language. O3000 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Include per Mr. X. Coverage by WP:RS support it and clearly meets Wikipedia:10YT.Casprings (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion at present...Trump has smore than once said something and walked it back. Best we not seek headlines until the full story is told.--MONGO (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose At least let the ink dry before introducing these kind of hyperbolic statements. PackMecEng (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC) Accidental double vote. See below. PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Sorry about that, my mistake. Thanks for the catch! PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seriously, need to establish that minimum 48 hours have to elapse or something to stop the flighty posting of trivial and momentary things. And please remember this is his BLP -- so unless it changed his life, try flogging it over at the Presidency article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
This is neither trivia nor momentary. This line of argument is absurd.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include in some form. Coverage to date is sufficient to establish that one sentence won't be WP:UNDUE, especially given the dramatic reaction across the political spectrum. We can hash out exactly how to word it or whether to go beyond one sentence over time. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
"Dramatic reaction" is essentially the daily predictable outcome of Trump uttering anything. We must have stronger criteria to include news in BLP. There are other articles dedicated to the daily flow of events and pronouncements. — JFG talk 05:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
We do have criteria. They're called WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I don't see us creating a special set of policies simply because the subject is so anomalous. Faithfully reflect the sources and the article will reflect the best possible encyclopedic coverage of the subject.- MrX 🖋 13:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: ludicrous to try to jam something into the article before we even know what was discussed during the meeting.– Lionel(talk) 09:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
But this isn't a discussion about "what was discussed during the meeting" (and that we'll never know, since it was one on one, unless Putin has some tapes he'll leak). This is a discussion about what was said at the join press conference.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course the Helsinki summit needs to be included in one way or the other. Both in the body and in the lead. There is no question about that and there is no legitimate reason to oppose its inclusion, based on Wikipedia policies. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to omit this material and such comments must be ignored. This is an extremely well covered event, regarded as astonishing and highly significant by countless reliable sources. It's on a whole different level than the daily squabble he engages in domestically, he essentially sided with Putin, the Soviet Communist KGB agent and sworn enemy of the United States, in attacking his own country and the west, after also attacking the US' closest allies (in the alliance that the US founded and that has served US interests for nearly 70 years) in the days before, and was met with universal condemnation at home and in the rest of the western world. Reliable sources agree that this event will have serious consequences both geopolitically and in terms of international security, and for the US' role in the world and him personally. There is now a very serious and significant discussion of this event as an act of treason, which is a main theme in third party coverage of the event. Politically it's certainly the most significant thing he has done so far since he took office, and unless he does something even more extreme, this is what history will remember him for, much like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are remembered for having spied for Russia. --Tataral (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Politically it's certainly the most significant thing he has done so far since he took office. Silly me, I thought Trump would be forever remembered for his Muslim ban, the North Dakota pipeline, trampling over climate change, threatening to nuke North Korea, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and taking innocent children for a "shower". Damn was I off the mark![FBDB]JFG talk 13:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The North Dakota pipeline is trivial compared to placing his country on the wrong side of the ongoing Cold War, being totally in the pocket of his country's primary adversary and making enemies of his country's allies of the past 70 years. The other outrages, his Muslim ban and so on, while extremist far-right policies for which he has rightly been condemned, are not at the same level in the larger scheme of things. There is no doubt that in terms of historical significance his stance towards Russia is his main legacy; it's not limited to just what happened in Helsinki either. (Even Trump's own supporters, like Newt Gingrich, say what he did in Helsinki was "the most serious mistake of his presidency"[25]) --Tataral (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
How come we are not including his expulsion of 60 diplomats/spies and the closure of the Seattle consulate in his "stance towards Russia"? How about the Syrian attacks that reportedly killed a bunch of Russian soldiers? Shall we add this to the BLP? I don't think so. — JFG talk 20:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to include that material in the article, go ahead and propose the necessary changes, this discussion is concerned with Trump betraying his country in Helsinki, as most reliable sources see it. --Tataral (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Addition of the latest "The sky is falling". Give it a week any everyone will of forgotten this and moved onto the next drama. Just remember people, breath. PackMecEng (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Ummm, @PackMecEng:, you just !voted twice. Maybe telling others to "remember to breath(sic)" is not quite appropriate when you have trouble restraining yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries! PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @PackMecEng: "Just remember people, breath." I just brushed my teeth! It's not me!
Seriously though, there's no doubt this will be in the article. This is not something that will be "forgotten" unless Trump declares war or shoots someone in the face, but fear not, because it will probably take at least a week for us to figure out some language, thus giving us the needed historical perspective BLPs are supposed to have. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
It is certainly possible, I do not doubt that. Just over the time since he started to run almost every week a new super crisis breaks out about something or another. Then after another week the next one starts. Finally about 2 weeks after you almost never hear about it again, that cycle has been pretty consistent for over a year now. While again I could be mistaken, I rather doubt it. PackMecEng (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Huh. I'm trying to think of the last time a US president sided with the enemy dictator of a country that just attacked us, while simultaneously denigrating his own intelligence services and international allies. Nope, I can't think of one. Pretty sure it is unprecedented (or as Trump would say, unpresidented). I think this scandal has legs. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
So because Trump creates so many super crises, we can't include this one? I'm sorry, but that just not logical. All we need to do is examine the extent of coverage and follow it. When you have blue chip source seriously examining whether Russia has compromising information on Trump[26] or the Speaker of the House and member of the same party reminding the President that Russia is not an ally[27], then yes, the threshold of significance has been crossed.- MrX 🖋 13:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The Speaker and Trump have disagreed before and the Speaker has had to "scold" Trump before and vice versa.--MONGO (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
LOL! I'm sure Trump flinched with the ferocity of the scolding! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I see. So the Republican President of the United States and the Republican Speaker of the House disagree about whether Russia is an ally of the United States? Interesting. - MrX 🖋 14:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm yes two people from the same party disagree about something. Truly fascinating... PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
When one of these people is the president and the other the speaker of the House, yeah, it is. Stop trying to downplay it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
It happens in just about every administration. It is not special this time. PackMecEng (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
PackMecEng Please back that extraordinary claim by citing a source that says a sitting House Speaker and a sitting President of the same party have disagreed about whether another country is an ally of the United States. I'll wait.- MrX 🖋 15:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Eh sure I will humor you. There were a few times under Obama with Polosi. Politco for a quick search. Also under Bush, Hastert disagreed with him a few times to NBC. Extraordinary? Hardly. PackMecEng (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
"...by citing a source that says a sitting House Speaker and a sitting President of the same party have disagreed about whether another country is an ally of the United States."- MrX 🖋 21:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Only if you can find some that have them agreeing on a favorite house paint. You are missing the point, the statement was the two positions disagreeing about anything is not special or relevant, as you know they can and do disagree about many things, with this one no more notable than others. PackMecEng (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now I see this as a terrible embarrassment, but I don't see what to add. All the talk about whether or not Trump is an active agent of Putin, for instance, can't be dismissed IMHO, but it's way too speculative at this point to add. So, I'm really not sure what we could say about this here, it belongs on related articles (main presidency, foreign visits, Russian interference, etc.). I'm willing to reevaluate in the future if there's more found here, but otherwise it just looks like Trump's desire to stand up next to another leader in a photo op. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose its just the usual anti Trumpers who attack him no matter what he does last week they were attacking him for calling on NATO to spend more money to protect themselves from Russia and calling on Germany to stop paying Russia billions for oil and its the anti trump Brennan who was the head of the CIA at the time this was happening who did nothing to stop them if this press conference is treason than what kind of traitor is he and Obama who did nothing to stop it at the time עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    So Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, and the Wall Street Journal are anti Trumpers? - MrX 🖋 15:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    Funny, I don't see a proposal on this talk page about his statements about NATO. I don't see a proposal on this talk page to include anything about Germany and oil. And can. you. please. stop. it. with. the "WHATABOUTOBAMAHUHHUHHUH?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!" It's nonsense. And boorish.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We are not supposed to be writing a hatchet job of the subject of this biography, his style of statesmanship includes incongruous utterances that eventually morph into standard political positions that become more widely accepted than they might have been when they were first introduced. The purpose of this biography is not to portray the subject in the worst possible light. Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Let's wait and see what happens. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

In the mother-of-all-backpedaling, we get [28] "Trump says he meant to say in Helsinki that he saw no reason why it would not be Russia that interfered in elections" power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody believes that. Trump also said about US and Russian intelligence agencies that he had "confidence in both parties." Today's walk-back (which he has read off a piece of paper) is just Trump trying to cover up his embarrassing fuck up. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Please take it to your talk page. This is not a forum. - MrX 🖋 23:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, you mean like this kind of "walk-back" and cover up about a statement made at least 36 different times in different speeches - something that actually and devastatingly affected millions of Americans, Scjessey? [29] -- ψλ 19:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
That's some bullshit whataboutism that has no place in this discussion. That said, it didn't "devastatingly" effect millions of Americans, it prevented insurance companies from selling totally worthless policies. It was insurance companies that dumped customers, rather than provide them with proper insurance that actually meant something. And it was Republican changes to the law that forced this to happen. Moreover, "Obamacare" has been a monumental success that has allowed millions of Americans to have insurance, when previously they had nothing. Lives have been saved. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
"it didn't "devastatingly" effect millions of Americans" As has been pointed out to you previously, since you live on the other side of the globe and are not actually an American nor do you spend any significant time here, you can't possibly know how Obama's "You can keep your doctor...you can keep your healthplan" lies about the ACA truly affected us. As the Politifact link I provided to you clearly and neutrally pointed out, Obama did lie and then he turned around and lied about the lie. All of this, in conjunction with Nancy Pelosi's "We'll have to pass the bill to see what is in it" statement, duped a lot of American voters into re-electing Mr. Obama. They trusted him in regard to the ACA, they got shafted, and it's one of the reasons why a number of voters went GOP in 2016 and to a candidate who promised to get rid of the ACA ASAP. I personally know more than two-dozen people who were forced to go on Obamacare and either ended up paying higher premiums than ever before (and kept rising year after year) or opted to not have health insurance and pay the annual penalty because in the long run, it was cheaper for them. Statistics show that only about (or even less of) 20% of Americans were helped positively by the ACA. Now, take both of those numbers and do some math. What do you end up with? 65 million who benefitted, 260.57 million who did not. Here are the biggest lies told about the ACA after it became law: "Like your plan? You can keep your plan"; "Like your doctor? You can keep your doctor"; "Premiums will go down"; "Premiums will go down at an average of $2,500"; "Deductibles will go down". None of these things were true. And if you think they are, it only proves that you don't live here and don't personally know anyone who was forever and negatively affected by the ACA. -- ψλ 22:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you before, I've been living permanently in Pennsylvania for seventeen fucking years. Your alternative facts fail to take into account the fact that since we had Obamacare, the real increase in premiums (as opposed to how it would've been without Obamacare) has dramatically reduced for all Americans. Maybe STFU about where I was born and where I live, and expand your dataset to beyond that provided by the right wing echo chamber. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
You know what? I sincerely apologize. I was thinking of a different non-American born editor who is vehemently anti-Trump. Yes, you're right you do live here. I do, however, stand by my comments and statistics as well as the Politico article on the truth about Obama's commentary on the ACA before it was passed. -- ψλ 22:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Just passing through ... but ... this doesn't really seem like the sort of conversation to have anywhere on Wikipedia, much less within a separate discussion on the talk page of a BLP. --HunterM267 talk 22:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Possibly, Hunterm267, but it happens all the time at this article talk page and pretty much any article talk page related to Donald Trump. In other words, this is nothing new. At all. -- ψλ 22:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include. As someone born during Truman's presidency, I can assure you that responses like this [30] are extraordinary, demonstrating the unprecedentedness of Trump's statement. A recent CIA director called it "nothing short of treasonous". You couldn't turn on a Foxnews channel yesterday afternoon for any length of time without hearing a really vivid denunciation. Anyone who suggests that the criticisms are just routine anti-Trumpism are either grossly uninformed or dishonest. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz The next days coverage was largely featuring Rand Paul approving Trump and noting the Trump Derangement Syndrome for such bonkers talk. Plus some sites mention that Trump had largely signaled his positions in the Saturday CBS interview, and other sites voicing suspicions on the timing of indictments leading to surreal split screen with Scottish reception and tainting Helsinki. By waiting a few days gives a chance for more data and better idea of actual weight or if it just fades away. President Trump saying “no collusion” and “witch hunt” did not seem like much of a surprise. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include per HUllaballoo Wolfowitz and others. Let's not try to pretend that his is on par with one of his tweets or something, this is much bigger, which is why it's covered EVERYWHERE and why every politician with access to the internet has made a statement about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include Given the setting, these unprecedented remarks have had a profound affect on America's standing in the world. kencf0618 (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include It's immediately obvious that this has long-term encyclopedic value. It's an American President standing next to America's chief adversary, siding with the adversary against America's intelligence agencies, and refusing to condemn the adversary for past and present interference in America's elections, it provoked widespread condemnation on all sides of the political spectrum, including among Trump sycophants. After 30 hrs of coverage and condemnation (including pleading by Trump sycophants for Trump to clarify and correct what he said), Trump backtracked with an entirely implausible story of how he mistakenly said "would" instead of "wouldn't" at one point. There are certain things that are of obvious immediate importance, and this is one of them. 10-20 yrs down the road, one of the most consequential aspects of our era will be Russian interference in the 2016 election and it's on-going interference in Western democracies, and the fact that the US President, who was aided into office by Russian interference and whose multiple senior campaign staff have been implicated as working with and/or seeking to work with Russian agents, refused to condemn Russia or even acknowledge that Russian interference occurred while standing next to Putin is stark imagery that's of long-lasting value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Nothing to see here PackMecEng (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC) extended by power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Proposal: the President just clarified his comments and stated that he misspoke. So I think we're done here. I propose:
  1. That this thread be closed and
  2. That we add to the lead Trump said he would be good for the Blacks and the record low Black unemployment proves it.
Lionel(talk) 01:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Lionelt: Please make good-faith suggestions, and not proposals that have no chance of happening. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
based on RS, the President has orchestrated a historic recovery, extremely low unemployment, record low Black & Hispanic unemployment, record stock market, housing market on fire, approaching record sustained GDP, all according to RS, and none of this in the lead and instead some editors want to jam a miscommunication into the lead. Even his most vocal far left critics believe he will ride this economy to re-election. – Lionel(talk) 01:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Dafuck? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
No, let's not treat Trump's lies[31] as if they're facts.- MrX 🖋 02:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
"the President just clarified his comments and stated that he misspoke"--haha, so it's over? I'm looking for that emoji where the little face is laughing with tears coming out of his eyes. That's hilarious, Lionel. MrX, don't feed the trolls, unless it's with emojis. Hey! Lionel! There's my African-American! AND HE HAS A JOB NOW!!! (need more of those emojis) Drmies (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm looking for the one where Captain Picard hides his face in his hand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know somebody hatted this cuz it's so embarrassing, but I'm still having trouble getting over "the Blacks".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Leaning towards Against inclusion. One of the problems with articles like this is that we're attempting to write history in real-time. It is impossible for us to know what historians 100 years from now will think of this sub-topic. It might be important; it might not be. But we shouldn't be subject to the whims of sensationalist news media who's primary goal is make money. We're WP:NOTNEWS and there is no WP:DEADLINE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is a wiki page JUST FOR his travel and meetings, which is why it should not be here. Additionally, keeping it strictly to the facts, there is an entire transcript available online with numerous citations that one can give if they want to expand on it without clogging up wikipedia with personal opinions, while still documenting and keeping the facts about the meeting available on Wikipedia. Rook2pawn (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
No, this is definitely not "a wiki page JUST FOR his travel and meetings." You have misunderstood entirely what Wikipedia is about. He can use his own private website for that. --Tataral (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe they meant the Presidency of Donald Trump article since this is about an event that happened during his Presidency while he was in an official news conference at an international event.--MONGO (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure entirely what Rook meant either, nor where they got that impression, but I can say, meaning no offense, that they must be confused over something; there is no such consensus, nor is the suggested approach one which is typically applied with regard to similar articles. We have quite a few articles that divide articles about heads of state (particularly U.S. presidents) into one giving a general overview, one focusing on the presidency/office and often some further supplemental articles, which is generally what WP:SUMMARYSTYLE provides for. Far from the main Name of President article being limited to specific topics, it is the catch-all under which anything of a certain threshold of noteworthiness (note I choose my words carefully to avoid WP:NOTABILITY a related but distinctly different topic, which often gets conflated with the former) can and should be added to the article, as this article is the collective discussion of all of his life, and all noteworthy (that is, WP:WEIGHTFUL) aspects of his presidency are relevant. The question then becomes, what information becomes key for inclusion and, in general, at what degree of detail is information from different epochs in his life and presidency require to presented in, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:ARTICLESIZE? But the article is most certainly not "just about his travel and meetings" and it's hard for me to parse a meaning from that other than to assume that maybe Rook is confusing this with consensus regarding another WP:SPINOFF article. Snow let's rap 20:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see now that Tataral seems to have misread Rook a little there and then Mongo and I came swiftly along for the ride. Rook is actually saying that this information should not be included here, but in Trump's travels article, which makes quite a bit more sense, but most of my comments still apply, as it happens; I still think inclusion there (which is probably proper) does not settle the question here by any means (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and again WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). But we did do a service in that misreading, sorry Rook2pawn. Snow let's rap 20:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course we should include a short description of the Putin summit and reactions to it. This was such a significant event, and his role in it so controversial, that many normally supportive Republicans and even many Fox News commentators criticized him for it, this is far more significant than the Kim Jong Un meeting, for example, which deservedly has a paragraph in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm happy with the current coverage in the article; it may get reduced in time but is fine now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include Significant for obvious reasons (see Wolfowitz, Snoogans etc). Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Include. I doubt this shall rise to being put in the lead, but in the article? Oh yes, most assuredly; I don't seen any way around that given the WP:WEIGHT of sourcing here. In terms of evaluative statements from public figures, there has been a chorus of commentary of the significance from all over the spectrum o both expected and non-expected figures--politicians from the right and left, and from both within America and without have all spoken as to the momentous shock created by this event. Even Newt Gingrich, one of Trump's staunchest political supporters has described it as "the most serious mistake of his presidency" and he's not alone as a major figure saying something along those lines.
I'm not sure if I agree with such assessments, but then, it doesn't really matter what I think; WP:RS are where we must take our ques here, and they are providing substantial coverage of the topic and treating it as a monumental moment in the presidency. I don't go out out of my way to search for Trump news, but I've never-the-less caught a part of the deluge of secondary sources (from such clearly RS fixtures as Reuters, the BBC, Associated Press and so on) which are painting the picture of a president and his White House which are on the defensive like they've perhaps never had to be before, and making it explicit that this occurrence is in at least some fundamental respects different from the other controversies or blowback Trump has faced before. That's case closed per WP:NPOV as far as I am concerned. I kind of think that may be an overstatement, but I don't get to substitute my analysis for that of the sources (WP:OR/WP:SYNTH), especially when so many of them converge on such a strong description of matters. Careful attribution and scrupulously neutral wording will be a necessity however, for obvious reasons. Snow let's rap 23:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This might deserve a sentence or two in Presidency of Donald Trump. The media losing its cotton-pickin' mind over Trump not doing what they wanted him to isn't a significant event in this man's life. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

personal details in top right info box on article[edit]

Is there a deliberate reason that there aren't any particular details in the top right info box for example I came here too find out how tall Mr Trump is and hoped the info box would have some personal stats. Any thoughts article editors? Thanks 78.145.51.144 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! It is always lovely to encounter someone else who appreciates trivia! I think the places on Wikipedia where you are most likely to find this sort of information prominently mentioned are in the leads of articles or in the Did you know section of the main page. But even then, I think it is likely to be given prominent mention only if it is part of what makes the subject of the article notable. (See Robert Wadlow, for example.) Under other circumstances information of this sort is considered great to feature prominently on, say, an entertainment web site but not so much on a web site with an encyclopedic format.
I hope this helps!
-- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 22:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
You can go to Google Search, type "how tall is donald trump" in the search box, and press Enter. Here's what you get when you do that, but don't believe everything you read on the internets. ―Mandruss  03:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)