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 (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 be $3.1 billion. (link 2, link 3)

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, upheld with link 4)

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 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) and 23 September 2018 (link 7).

24. Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (link) (superseded by #30 since 16 August 2018)

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)

30. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist." (link 1, link 2)

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

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (link 1, link 2)

RfC: Birtherism in the lede[edit]

Should the following text be added to the lede:

  • Trump first stirred controversy in Republican politics over his promotion of birther conspiracy theories, alleging that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The following sources can be used (all peer-reviewed academic sources):

  • Alan Abramowitz. 2018. The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Yale University Press. Quote: "“He made his first big splash in Republican politics in 2011 as the most prominent promoter of the conspiracy theory known as birtherism—the patently false claim that Barack Obama, the nation’s first African-American president, was born not in Hawaii but in Africa and was therefore ineligible to serve as president."
  • Michael Tesler. 2018. Islamophobia in the 2016 Election. The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics. Quote: "Donald Trump had rallied these Americans in the past by questioning President Obama's citizenship. Beliefs about Obama's birthplace and religion were both strong correlates of Republicans’ support for Trump in April 2011 when he was the face of the “birther movement”"
  • Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson. 2011. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Oxford University Press. Quote: "Stoked by demagogues like Donald Trump, the claim about President Obama’s otherness and illegitimacy reached its apogee in “Birther- ist” claims that Obama was not really born in the United States."
  • Julia Azari and Marc J. Hetherington. 2016. Back to the Future? What the Politics of the Late Nineteenth Century Can Tell Us about the 2016 Election. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Quote: "Donald Trump has perhaps deepened racial divisions even further. His bona fides on the issue have been clear for years. recall that he was a central figure in the “birther” movement, a group that actively questioned the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate, insisting that he was born in kenya, which would make him ineligible to be president."
  • Zelizer, Julian (ed.). 2018. The Presidency of Barack Obama: A First Historical Assessment. Princeton University Press. Quote: "In 2011, Donald Trump, in one of his first political interventions, jumped aboard the birthers’ bandwagon, alleging that “there’s something on that birth certificate that he [Obama] doesn’t like."
  • John Sides, Michael Tesler, Lynn Vavreck. 2018. Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America. Princeton University Press. Quote: "As Trump elevated his political profile during the Obama administration, racially charged rhetoric was central. He rekindled the long-discredited claim that Obama was not a native American citizen and became a virtual spokesperson for the “birther” movement. The strategy worked: when Trump flirted with running for president in 2011, his popularity was concentrated among the sizable share of Republicans who thought that President Obama was foreign born or a Muslim or both."

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

For background, here is the recent discussion from August 2018: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive 91#Birtherism in the lede?JFG talk 14:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Oppose - clearly as per MOS:LEAD Govindaharihari (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Undue weight. Also, it would be better to try a simple suggestion and discussion thread before jumping into an RfC process. — JFG talk 13:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    [2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. Looks like your proposal didn't get consensus then; let's see what happens now. I'll update the RfC header to point readers to the August discussion. — JFG talk 14:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Insignificant for lede - was less significant than his reality TV and other activities at the time, and definitely insignificant in relation to being elected. The "firstness" might also have issues (certainly first in the background to the 2016 cycle - but Trump has had various political dabblings on the local and natiin onal level dating back to the 80s).Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    It's weird how all these peer-reviewed assessments by political scientists and historians emphasize the birtherism as an initial stepping stone when Trump allegedly had all kinds of noteworthy "political dabblings"... do you think all those political scientists and historians missed this? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    It's really not appropriate or helpful to be passive aggressive/sarcastic when attempting to counter someone else's policy argument. Just make your WEIGHT/RS argument (which in this case is a legitimate underlying point) without the rhetorical theatrics. That said, I do agree with the point you are striking at: what matters is what the sources say, not the idiosyncratic analysis of our editors here as to what was an "important" event in Trump's story. However, Icewhiz is not wrong that Trump's political (and indeed, specifically presidential) ambitions began decades before the birtherism nutbaggery. What possibly saves the statement as accurate is that it specifically mentions this was the beginning of Trump making waves in Republican politics; prior to Trump's jumping on the anti-Obama bandwagon as part of the series of political riffs that led to his successful 2016 campaign, he had not been seen as a friend to the ideals of the right. That re-branding and re-orienting of himself as a conservative stalwart and an anti-establishment ideologue very much did begin with the birtherism claims--or so our reliable sources which cover that part of his story overwhelmingly say, on the balance.
    Now the flip side of that point is that some may reasonably say that this nuance is not clearly supplied by that one word "republican", which I think is a legitimate complaint and one of the reasons I think your specific proposed wording is less than ideal, even if I agree with the underlying weight argument that the birtherism advocacy is of profound importance to the Trump story and more than DUE for the lead, if we can find the right wording. Snow let's rap 23:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure at all the quotes above support the "firstness" here (they certainly support this was of some significance - but we're questioning lede inclusion here) - Abramowitz says "first big splash" (so - prior "small splashes" not excluded) and Zelizer says "one of his first political interventions" (so - one of a few). It is easy to source that Trump ran full-page political ads in 1987,[1] and that he was involved in the abortive Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000 - so stating "first" unequivocally is possibly not factual. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Oreskes, Michael (September 2, 1987). "Trump Gives a Vague Hint of Candidacy". The New York Times. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
  • Support the idea, but oppose the wording on the basis the sentence is awkward to parse. Recommend abandoning the RfC immediately in favor of a simple discussion (per JFG). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The text material is enough; do not mention it in the lede. My oppose applies no matter how the material is worded. And JFG is correct: This should not be an RFC. Please convert it from an RfC to a normal talk page discussion. Per WP:RFC: Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. 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. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    I started a discussion 6 weeks ago. Like most discussions on this talk page, it devolved into forum debates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Most political science and history treatments of Trump's involvement in politics notes that the birtherism is an important and noteworthy initial stepping stone for Trump, bringing him great prominence. If this were to be added to the lede, it would be the most well-sourced material in this entire article, and the ONLY material in the lede or the article that has been shown to be considered important by political scientists and historians. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:DUE. Very relevant to Trump's political career, much more so than reality TV, for example. Trump's current main claim to notability is being a politician, not a reality TV star, so this inclusion is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Undue weight in my view for the lede itself. Not a significantly major event in Trump's life and the text in the main body of the article is sufficient in my opinion. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this was recently rejected in archive 91. Not a large part of the article so does not fit WP:LEAD. Also, think not a lot of external WEIGHT compared to other matters, and finally just seems to not have an enduring effect in his life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    That's not even a remotely accurate representation of what WP:LEAD says about this kind of analysis. Here's what the relevant section of WP:LEADREL (WP:Lead_section#Relative_emphasis) actually says regarding such matters:
    "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." (emphasis added)
    Nowhere does WP:LEAD say that "no topic can be covered in the lead unless it is discussed in X number of kilobytes in the main body of the article." And indeed, it would have been a pretty dumb and shortsighted standard for our editorial community to adopt, had it done so: the importance of a topic in reliable sources very rarely maps 1:1 with how much real estate it ultimately takes up in some version of an article. Some topics take up relatively little space in an article because they are relatively straight-forward and more prone to a concise description in plain terms than some other topics. The length of coverage in an article is not in itself determinative of its importance; that measurement is rather made--as a matter of very plain, explicit, and long-standing community consensus--through a WP:WEIGHT analysis, and by fidelity with the sources generally.
    Such is the analysis here: it doesn't take us very much space to note that Trump was the most significant proponent of the birther conspiracy theory for years and repeatedly asserted claims to have proof supporting it. But that very straight-forward statement does not transform the significance which the WP:Reliable sources attribute to that part of the of the Trump story. Or at least that's a reasonable argument. We can always look at the number of cites and depth of coverage to debate the finer points here, but we need to at least be starting from an accurate reading of the relevant policy and how such matters are actually decided on this project (as a faithful representation of the sources, not an arbitrary measure of how many sentences the topic occupies in the article). Snow let's rap 06:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    What on earth is he ranting on about ? I said
    (1) This was recently rejected in archive 91 as the most recent;
    (2) This does not fit WP:LEAD - it does not fit the guidance of what lead is supposed to do -- to intro the article and summarize its most important contents, as given at the WP:LEAD marker. (And to not be a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.) No mention of LEADREL though I note it does not fit well there either, as not harmonizing relative size in lead and body;
    (3) Not a lot of external WP:WEIGHT compared to other topics - simple fact of the 6 weeks he spent in 2011 did not get much coverage at the time or since other than passing criticism afterwards that he was involved
    (4) Not an enduring effect in his life - It's been mentioned as just 6 weeks in 2011 that he avoids ever since, and gotten a place in the article but is just not a major part of his activities or life even during those 6 weeks, and not a significant effect on his life.
    Just not LEAD material. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    Mark, since you've chosen to characterize my response to your arguments as "ranting" (I assume that your reference to a "he" is me, though I am not sure why you assume my gender as such), I will allow myself to be perfectly blunt about a habit of yours I have observed: you have a pronounced proclivity (basically everywhere I have seen you contribute, but on this talk page in particular) of invoking a policy through a link as if just using the shorthand gives credence to your position, even though a reading of the actual policy's wording reveals that is says something very different indeed. So let's look at each of your points above, in turn:
    "(1) This was recently rejected in archive 91 as the most recent;"
    Great. Are you aware that consensus can change? Notably that last discussion was not an RfC soliciting the broader input of the community and actually, it very clearly did not arrive at an established consensus "rejecting" the proposal, as you boldly but quite inaccurately claim. Meanwhile this RfC already has several times the number of participants, and will benefit from a formal close. It therefore, under every relevant policy, stands as the current consensus (or rather will if it resolves with a clear consensus).
    "(2) This does not fit WP:LEAD - it does not fit the guidance of what lead is supposed to do -- to intro the article and summarize its most important contents, as given at the WP:LEAD marker. (And to not be a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.) No mention of LEADREL though I note it does not fit well there either, as not harmonizing relative size in lead and body;"
    You seem to be unaware that MOS:LEADREL is actually a section of WP:LEAD, not an additional policy. It's specifically the portion of that policy which tells how to judge the WP:WEIGHT of relative elements within an article and their corresponding fitness for the lead--and it makes clear that this fitness is not established by looking at how much real estate the topic takes up in the article (the notion you are advancing above), but rather the weight it is ascribed in reliable sources, even if it is a very simple fact that is very quickly summarized in the article body itself. This is exactly the reason I quoted it in its entirety for you above. But this is the perfect example of how you seem to see what you want to see in policy, because nowhere does it say that you "harmonize size" of coverage between the lead and main body; it says the lead should reflect vital facts relative to weight they have been given in the sources, not the length of characters that are required to describe those facts in the main body of our own article. My last post already explained the numerous reasons why the community has never endorsed such an arbitrary approach.
    "(3) Not a lot of external WP:WEIGHT compared to other topics - simple fact of the 6 weeks he spent in 2011 did not get much coverage at the time or since other than passing criticism afterwards that he was involved;"
    Candidly, I don't think you are truly very well informed on this controversy if you genuinely believe that Trump only made this claim for "six weeks in 2011" and that it got little press. Trump made these claims repeatedly over a course of more than five years (please see Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Donald_Trump and the following sources [3][4][5][6] for examples), and on several occasions even claimed to be privy to insider evidence that supported his assertions, during which time the claims were criticized, debunked, and otherwise discussed in literally hundreds of WP:reliable sources. Even more significant, reliable sources summarizing that coverage routinely frame this activity as a turning point for Trump's political fortunes. I do not believe you bring anything remotely approaching WP:Neutral point of view or due diligence in research when it comes to your approach to these easily discoverable sources.
    "(4) Not an enduring effect in his life - It's been mentioned as just 6 weeks in 2011 that he avoids ever since, and gotten a place in the article but is just not a major part of his activities or life even during those 6 weeks, and not a significant effect on his life."
    Please review WP:Original research; policy forbids us from using our idiosyncratic notions of what is "important" to decide what content (lead content included) should look like. Rather we faithfully report what reliable sources say about a matter, and when that matter involves controversy, we cover the span of major opinions about it, but we do not just try to minimize the underlying issues just because some of our editors are of the opinion that the controversy is overblown and should never have existed. That's blatant OR.
    Look, editors operating from good faith can have reasonable differences of opinion about the WP:WEIGHT of this topic and therefore engage in a reasonable debate about whether it belongs in the lead. And if this discussion does lead to a firm consensus, we should accept that result even if it seems inaccurate to us. But that discussion cannot proceed on the basis of your arguments, because you are either unaware of, or purposefully misrepresenting the basic facts (as amply verified in mountains of sources) and the language of the relevant policies, apparently in favour of alternative views which conform to your previously formed opinions--and frankly, it's a pattern. "Rant" over; cheers yourself. Snow let's rap 08:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    Snow - lots of stuff there, but unless you have a question of what I meant or speak to my points it just seems tangential ranting. Again my input was the points: 1 - this topic has been discussed and rejected repeatedly before — as recently as August. 2 - it does not fit the main goals for LEAD (i.e. summarize the major parts of article. 3 - it simply has relatively little WEIGHT coverage compared to other topics (e.g. sex tapes or immigrant families). 4 - and it just does not seem to have had an enduring effect in his life. I.e this is supposed to be his bio story of his life, and this is just not a big deal in his life.
    Now for anything other than you need my meaning of these explained or have something on these specific points, please make it as your own input elsewhere. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly support I was hesitant to support, but Trump's involvement in birtherism genuinely is one of the first well-known examples of him dabbling in US politics, and now that politics are what he's known for this is actually very relevant. He's not just "that rich guy from The Celebrity Apprentice" anymore, so his political track record is actually important now. After all, part of MOS:LEAD is quote "establishing context" and "including any prominent controversies." The short single sentence proposed would not be undue. (though for obvious reasons, much more than that would be) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 07:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, in principle, per my two responses above. I certainly think the precise wording needs some improvement, but this is the genesis of Trump's turn to (and initial success with) the right of American politics, which delivered him into the single most powerful political office in existence, so yes, it's worthy of brief mention in the lead as a significant milestone in his political fortunes. Or more to the point, this is how WP:reliable sources view the matter. Snow let's rap 07:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced and relevant. Its one of the things he was well known for in politics before truly running. Many others have hit on that and many other relevant reasons to include and I agree. ContentEditman (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Undue weight for the lead. The mention in the body is enough, perhaps at Racial views of Donald Trump it would be appropriate just not here. PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:NPOV, specifically undue weight, because it doesn't fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Trump said in September 2016 - "President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period" - which was widely reported on - (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20). This viewpoint was also expressed in three books - (Made in America: The Annotated Donald J. Trump - American Nightmare: Donald Trump, Media Spectacle and Authoritarian Populism - Enemies of the State: The Radical Right in America from FDR to Trump), and two journal articles. Michael Tesler, the author and co-author of 2 of the sources cited above, also used this article he wrote for the WaPo as a reference in 2 of the aforementioned academic sources cited, where he specifically mentions that Trump said Obama was born in the US. It's cherrypicking and editorializing to include one significant view while excluding the other significant viewpoint. Leave it out of the lead, the text in the main body of the article is sufficient. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    His later dismissal of birtherism, false claims that Hillary started the birther movement, and later reiteration of birther conspiracy theories in private[7] are not notable enough for the lede. The lede is not where we trace Trump's involvement with the birther movement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    Totally agree that the lede is not where we should trace Trump's involvement with the birther movement, which is why I !voted oppose. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support multi-year campaign which led to the presidential election clearly needs mentioning, though perhaps not worded as proposed. zzz (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose(Summoned by bot) Doesn't belong in the lead, perhaps in the lede of Political positions of Donald Trump Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Coverage was and remains both extensive and high-profile, to the point where it still comes up fairly regularly concerning him. Many sources go so far as to cite it as a key reason why he was eventually elected president. A sentence in the lead for it is clearly WP:DUE. --Aquillion (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Undue weight to already over-long lede; agree it could go into intro section on politics Aboudaqn (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Undue weight as per other responses. VeritasVox (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above undue weight, and besides, it doesn't seem accurate to me: his presidential run in 2000 predates this. ARR8 (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Seeking consensus: North Korea and Trump[edit]

I'm not sure why the July discussion didn't result in a consensus list entry. But there is a clear consensus to omit the historical first from the lead, at least for now, and I'll add said entry.
There is some support for and no opposition to a mention below the lead, but I'll stop short of declaring a consensus to include, and it makes a difference process-wise (I suggest somebody just BOLD it). ―Mandruss  10:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the following sentence be included in the body of the article and the lead?

"He became the first sitting president to meet with a sitting leader of North Korea"[1].

  • YES because such an event was very notable in diplomacy history of the United States. Thinker78 (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Not in the lead — we have just had a discussion about including North Korea in the lead and this has been done. I think this could be included in the body if it can be fitted in.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Not in the lead - I have exactly the same view as Jack Upland. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Not in the lead I do not mean to sound like a parrot here but they are both correct. There has been a lot of previous discussion about Korea in the lead and I think it is in a decent place at the moment. It is an interesting and notable fact, I would have to see where it could fit in the body assuming there is room for it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I looked in the current consensus list and didn't find North Korea but I found a previous discussion in late July. --Thinker78 (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Edited 23:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In body for now - later, after a trade pact, peace treaty, or North Korea gives up its nuclear weapons happens then it would deserve more space and a lead position. Right now it is notable but not enough in here to suit lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until something more substantial is announced for a lede mention. Definitely keep up with ongoing developments in article body. — JFG talk 09:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


Sources

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

Infobox place of birth[edit]

I propose that the the |birth_place= parameter in the infobox be changed from the current "New York City" to "Queens, New York City" (acknowledging that this has been discussed before). New York City is a big place and Queens is very different from e.g. Staten Island or The Bronx. When the average person (including most New Yorkers) hear New York City, they think of Manhattan. Moreover, including Queens would not be overly specific, as it is in fact an official administrative territorial unit of both New York City and New York State (i.e. it's not like a neighborhood), since it holds the status of both borough and county. Just as the rule of thumb on Wikipedia is to include the smallest official territorial unit in the infobox, so too should that apply here. Ergo Sum 23:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Just noting FTR that this is in the #Current consensus list as item 2. As least three editors will support revisiting the issue. More than three, if you count those who wanted birthplace to include state and/or country. ―Mandruss  00:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Are we sure he wasn't born on some other planet entirely? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I would support "Queens, New York City". More precise without getting lengthy or redundant. — JFG talk 23:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett and Objective3000: Since you commented on the Queens being in the place of birth field, would you care to weigh in here? Ergo Sum 01:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I live in Manhattan, indeed in the same area as Trump. We vote at the same poll. Yes, we on this island tend to think of Manhattan as NYC -- which is a flaw rather embarrassing to admit. But then, it has long been said that DJT has disliked that he lived in Queens. Queens is a very large borough. The area in which DJT was born was considered a white enclave at that time. Which is to say, if we use Queens, we are suggesting an overall diversity, in the minds of many, that didn't exist. In fact, Manhattan is probably just as diverse. Frankly, it’s all rather silly. There are counties, congressional districts, and boroughs, and they don’t match. (Los Angeles county is much larger and much more confusing.) Because of its density, Manhattan has multiple congressional districts. Because of gerrymandering, congressional districts cross borough borders. I don't have a strong opinion on this. As a general rule, I'm not keen on narrowing this too much in order to avoid making any suggestion of upbringing. I'd probably prefer NYC -- but would listen to arguments. O3000 (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Queens, New York, U.S. - before, the defacto norm seemed to be to present it that way, from examples of Christina Aguilera, Staten Island, New York or Woody Allen, The Bronx, New York; or Joseph Barbera, Manhattan. It also seems to be a common phrasing on the outside web for his birthplace. Since then, it looks like someone took the discussion as a mandate to change a lot of List of people from New York City, although in early cases like George Abernethy it seems a bit off to say he was born somewhere that was not incorporated until after he was dead. ANyway, New York City is a special case -- I'll stick with saying "Queens, New York". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
We surely have to look at Barack Obama. His Infobox declares he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.. So we narrow his birthplace down to a city of only 340,000 people. Queens says it has 2.3 million people. So it would make sense to narrow Trump's birthplace down to at least that level of detail. But then there's that U.S. bit on the end of Obama's entry. Unless we are going to treat them differently regarding country of birth (Now, why would we do that?), we should also logically mention the country for Trump. HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
(Now, why would we do that?) In this case (see the 2016 discussion) it was decided that the country (and the state) would be superfluous for what is likely the most famous city in the world. The extremely rare reader who doesn't know where New York City is is free to click the link and they will be enlightened at the very beginning of the target article (that's why we have links). This calculation does not apply to Honolulu—it's far less well-known—so it's not at all surprising to see a different treatment there (or for any city besides NYC). This is the point that WP:OSE tries to make. To point to other treatments of NYC would stifle evolutionary improvement of the encyclopedia: "Better is more important than consistent". ―Mandruss  08:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
What Mandruss said. U.S. is superfluous here, and I dare say in any other infobox of New Yorkers. — JFG talk 09:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Excluding it, while including it for Obama, runs the risk of being seeing as responding to (Trump's very own dishonest) allegations that Obama wasn't born in the US. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I once suggested that infoboxes should use the target article's title as default, since the considerations are very similar. I still think it would be a good idea, and not solely because of the amount of time saved debating things. I note that such a convention would omit state and country for occurrences of Honolulu. ―Mandruss  09:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
That seems sensible. I would also suggest that Honolulu is rather well known globally, better known than the birthplaces of many Presidents. It also means only one thing, unlike New York, which has many different legal, geopolitical and popular meanings. Remember, we are a global encyclopaedia. (I love spelling it that way to make this point.) People all over the world will read this article. I see place of birth as needing as much clarification as possible. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Queens. The analogy to Los Angeles is not appropriate because the city of Los Angeles is entirely within the larger Los Angeles County, by far the most populous county in the United States. New York City is unique in that it consists of five boroughs and five counties, separated by seawater in many cases, and it previously consisted of several different cities which were later consolidated. I believe that the Queens identifier adds significant value to the reader. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the infobox should contain either Queens, New York or Queens, New York City as place of birth. Gratdaal (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

References to racist[edit]

There are blatant BLP violations in this article, such as would have never been tolerated in the Obama article. The use of "perceived as" before racist is a weasel method of inserting a libel into an article. The evidence is that Trump is no racist and that this is a smear. No reference to racist should be made. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC))

I made the section heading neutral per heading guidelines and WP:TPO bullet 12. ―Mandruss  17:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@PeacePeace: This has been discussed and adjudicated in a recent RfC. However, if you can show new reliable sources making the case "that Trump is no racist and that this is a smear", please submit them for discussion. — JFG talk 09:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought wikipedia worked the other way you need to show reliable sources that aren't just opinions making the case "that Trump is a racist and that this is not a smear" עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@AmYisroelChai: Trump is a racist, and that blindingly obvious fact is fully sourced in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
User:PeacePeace - please do suggest an alternate wording, if - and only if - you think you have a better phrasing. That wording is a recent and weak change, not much liked. There was long-standing consensus from February to NOT include allegations of racism in lead at all link 1 with the wording "criticized as", then a recent weak consensus to say something about racial stance in lead in September link 2 which was dinged as WP:WEASEL (I dinged it as failing WP:LEAD, WP:BLP and WP:BLPLEAD, and WP:RACIST) for the phrase "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived by some as racially charged". That was almost immediately followed by another long/confused RFC over wording, which wound up 9 Oct saying "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist” link3 which had to be interpreted out of the tangle and did not seem a strong consensus but was felt clear enough. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
PeacePeace has a point about weasel-wording. Donald Trump#Racial views begins, "Trump has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions that are perceived as racially motivated." This has four sources - which is always a red light - of writers saying Trump is a racist. But all the sources prove is that some writers perceive this. And per WP:LABEL, articles should not call subjects racist unless they self-identify as racist. The article David Duke does not call him a racist. I would change racially motivated to racist. Also, it is an interesting question whether Trump thinks that minorities are inferior or cynically appeals to the dark side of his most hard core supporters. TFD (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The article does not call him racist. It says he has done things that some people have called racist, which is true and cited. We can and do omit accusations of racism per WP:UNDUE (Jeff Sessions' article treads very lightly), but like Duke, being racist is too closely connected to Trump's public persona. ghost 20:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that it did. But it says that his remarks are perceived as racially motivated which conveys the same meaning. "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." In this case, one can say, "well I didn't actually call him racist," but that is the meaning that is being conveyed. TFD (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect information[edit]

The early life section states "Trump grew up in Jamaica, Queens". This is incorrect. Trump grew up in a different nearby neighborhood called Jamaica Estates. Can a user who is able to edit this page please correct this? It is pretty awful to have a blatant error like this on Wikipedia, especially for a prominent person like Trump. If a reliable source is needed for this info here is one:[8] Gratdaal (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done IIRC it used to say Jamaica Estates and someone changed it to remove estates. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It said Jamaica Estates until December 2017, when the "Estates" disappeared, appparently in error, as a result of two successive edits.[9][10] (The WaPo source involved there provided the street address but doesn't contain the word "Jamaica".) Of the two cited sources currently in the article, the first is a book that I can't check without a trip to the library and the second supports Jamaica Estates. ―Mandruss  10:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, you can read the referenced pages online, just click on the page number in the reference. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Wareham Place (first Trump home) and Midland Parkway (where the family moved after the 5th child was born) are in Jamaica Estates, according to page 32 of Kranish & Fisher. The references to pg. 31 and 37 probably apply to the "frequent trips into Manhattan." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2018[edit]

Can I write or add some facts about our president while he is still hear ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.179.114 (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

What exactly do you want? Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2018[edit]

Please change "In January 2018, Trump was examined by White House physician Ronny Jackson, who stated that he was in excellent health and that his cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues,[80] although his weight and cholesterol level were higher than recommended," to "In January 2018, Trump was examined by White House physician Ronny Jackson, who stated that he was in excellent health and that his cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues,[80] although his weight and cholesterol level were higher than recommended." There should be a period at the end of this sentence, not a comma. Aarontaksingmak (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done[11] PackMecEng (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2018[edit]

Please change "Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level ought to have raised serious concerns about his cardiac health." to " Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle, and LDL cholesterol level ought to have raised serious concerns about his cardiac health." There should be an Oxford comma after "lifestyle" for consistency, as this article has been using Oxford commas throughout. Aarontaksingmak (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done[12] PackMecEng (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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

There is an unnecessary space between the last word in this sentence and the period. --> "In 1976, Fred Trump set up trust funds of $1 million ($4.3 million in 2017 dollars) for each of his five children and three grandchildren ." Aarontaksingmak (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done[13] PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)